Fully endorsed.

Harder for people to pushback on reality when it doesn't come from a white, straight man.

Super smart take.

Maybe why Ripley, The Bride, Sara Connor and Clarice Starling are my favorite female heroes.

Thanks for posting!  :)

Quoted from Grandma Bear Maybe why Ripley, The Bride, Sara Connor and Clarice Starling are my favorite female heroes. Thanks for posting!  :)

You're welcome :)

And those are proper empowering figures and great characters.

Isn’t making a video like this, expressing your disdain for this feminine wokeism, also a form of wokeness? In these cyber times, everything this woman speaks of will no doubt be forgotten and we will have moved on. But, I better make a video about it while the iron’s hot. Personally, I think it’s just a phase. Like in the seventies we had big disaster movies — Airport, Towering Inferno, etc. Then they fell off. The ticket sales will no doubt provide the answer.

Quoted from SAC The ticket sales will no doubt provide the answer.

I think that's what she said.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I think that's what she said.

Oh okay. I didn’t get that far in the video.

Nailed it! Thanks for sharing, Andrew. :)

Quoted from Zack Nailed it! Thanks for sharing, Andrew. :)

You're welcome :)

She did a great job of disentangling the geniune criticism from how that criticism is portrayed by those who push this shit.

Yeah... didn't land that much for me...

Wokeness overdone is damaging arrogance. Underdone it's ignorance. Obviously, when first emerging it went overboard (and still is) - but like all pendulums do - it'll find a nice balance by the time we're done wringing our hands.  And in my view, those enraged by the Dr. Suess and Mr. Potato Head changes (it's the end of the world!!) are as off the mark as those that are woke.

Now on to Wonder Woman - odd that this was emblematic of how women should be portrayed for this blogger. I remember when I saw the film  - I thought - WTF, REALLY!!! They're going with that same skimpy, non-battle. Linda Carter style costume that they went with. Right, a woman warrior would naturally design a costume with exposed shoulders and thighs. Cause -- ya, know. It's woman.  Good thing when we went back to her origin they were all pretty much clad the same too - you know. cause that explains it.  Women living and fighting in the elements all universally decided to wear skimpy clothes.

I had these thoughts before "wokeness".  I thought, man - if a woman wrote that film from scratch, would Wonder Woman and her tribe essentially be clad in military grade swimsuits. And I thought - no effing way.  I kind of think if the first WW was made today - you would see that costume go. In my mind - that would be a victory for wokeness. And - of course there would be a lot of stupid things added because of wokeness. Point being - it ain't all bad and it ain't all good and it'll hit an acceptable balance.

Without watching the video...

I think of wokeness and cancel culture the same way. If we hadn't missed so badly on the wrong side for so long, we wouldn't need wokeness and cancel culture today. So what if we miss by going too far for a while? We'll get it right eventually.

Seriously... women, blacks, LGBTQ etc. have been "cancelled" for hundreds of years. Too bad, so sad we go too far in correcting things now. When we hit 401 years of over-correction, we can talk about it. (As if blacks/women are treated equally even today.)

Like I said, we'll get it right eventually and be better for it. These are growing pains. Necessary.

Quoted from PKCardinal Without watching the video... I think of wokeness and cancel culture the same way. If we hadn't missed so badly on the wrong side for so long, we wouldn't need wokeness and cancel culture today. So what if we miss by going too far for a while? We'll get it right eventually. Seriously... women, blacks, LGBTQ etc. have been "cancelled" for hundreds of years. Too bad, so sad we go too far in correcting things now. When we hit 401 years of over-correction, we can talk about it. (As if blacks/women are treated equally even today.) Like I said, we'll get it right eventually and be better for it. These are growing pains. Necessary.

yup

Quoted from PKCardinal Without watching the video... I think of wokeness and cancel culture the same way. If we hadn't missed so badly on the wrong side for so long, we wouldn't need wokeness and cancel culture today. So what if we miss by going too far for a while? We'll get it right eventually. Seriously... women, blacks, LGBTQ etc. have been "cancelled" for hundreds of years. Too bad, so sad we go too far in correcting things now. When we hit 401 years of over-correction, we can talk about it. (As if blacks/women are treated equally even today.) Like I said, we'll get it right eventually and be better for it. These are growing pains. Necessary.

This is a seriously complacent attitude extremely prevalent in left wing circles; as someone on the left, I see it constantly. It's borne of playing party politics and not wanting to give an inch to the right.

The problem isn't even Hollywood per se (it's merely a symptom), but a body of ideas derived from postmodern thinkers such as Focault and Derrida, where the fundamental tenets of knowledge production are being shifted from a liberal orientation to something very different. A simple application of these ideas is intersectionality / positionality. People need to wise up to what's happening. This isn't about equality in the traditional liberal understanding of the word.

The complacency of many who assume it's oscillation rather than retribution, and a shift to a new paradigm, is depressing.

Is this new paradigm (sometimes called 'successor ideology') - which expressly rejects liberalism (the philosophy rather than politial application) - assured of supplanting what we have? No. But these ideas have firm roots being applied as intended. They are utterly disastrous ideas sneaking through with many falsely assuming they're liberal ideas. Liberalism is a good trojan horse, because the natural connotation of 'liberal' is well meaning. It's false comfort. These ideas, which manifest in race essentialism, cancel culture, cultural appropriation, etc, are not remotely liberal.

There is a myopia formed in sticking rigidly to party politics. What's happening is much bigger than simple right and left posturing.

It's simply not acceptable to say you're fighting for equality and being comfortable with biased / unfair outcomes, because it's reversing what came before. That's not equality in spirit or practice. And it's certainly not liberal.

Quoted from Andrew It's simply not acceptable to say you're fighting for equality and being comfortable with biased / unfair outcomes, because it's reversing what came before. That's not equality in spirit or practice. And it's certainly not liberal.

This! Extremely well said. Not sure how anyone in their right mind could possibly disagree with this.

It's all about degrees, mates.  Not sure why that point keeps getting missed.

I've seen no one here argue for wokeness as a paradigm of how things ought to be.  I've seen a lot of people. most recently Anthony, opine on where it ought to be on the list of things we get outraged about.

Look, I'm a liberal and I hate the term white privilege. Asides from the fact that there are a ton of broke-ass white folks , discrimination against one race does not result in privilege for another. I hate terms like communities of color.  Because, as James Carville said, I know lots of White and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods. My wife is Mexican. She HATES LatinX as a term. I think white people can write black characters. I find the constant hedging of words and phrases tedious. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I just don't happen to think that it is any more than a temporary swing of the pendulum,. I don't think it is anything to panic about. And I do know that a good portion of the country that panics about wokeness don't give a shit about real issues like climate change, discrimination in the policing and justice systems, hungry children (insert whatever liberal causes you disdain here), etc.

It is not that wokeness is not dysfunctional. It is. But it's origin is certainly understandable given our traditional and longstanding neglect of real hefty issues (you know, like killing unarmed black people - shit like that).  I mean, Christ - it's only in the last few years gay people were allowed to marry! So - there is an over reaction because of a long standing under-reaction? Color me shocked.

Here's my prediction. In two years we won't be talking about wokeness. We'll forget it even existed. We will be talking about school shootings, racist police practices, poverty and how fucking hot it's getting.

AND - the Wonder Woman costume was sexist (I'll say it).

But railing on wokeness, and cancel culture, with endless videos and tweets, does result in one thing...

Clicks.

Identity politics are a conservative fiction, invented to distract and divide the working class so we don’t overrule and overthrow the one-percent who control the means of production.

Jeff Bezos will change Amazon’s app thumbnail in support of Black Lives Matter but then underpay and exploit his black employees.

Biden is just Trump wrapped in a rainbow flag and armed with more advanced vocabulary. Nobody in our current political institutions care about you, including so-called socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC.

It all needs to be burnt down and started again.

This is kind of funny because politics always get people riled up and start arguing or at least pipe up with their point of view regardless of where the discussion started. I watched the video. The whole thing. Even paused SOTU on CNN to do so. The video was actually about how this affects the movies. A medium we all try to write for, so extra funny/interesting that so few watched it. Her point was that wokeness, a stupid word to begin with IMO. A new badge people like to wear so other know they are a good person and not some neanderthal. What she talks about is how this wokeness and cancel culture is forcing movies to fit into this ideal and by doing so making movies bad. Mainly by having female heroes be heroes, which is fine, but they are heroes and superheroes without earning it. Therefore, no one can relate to them. Not even women which is half of the audience. Also, they can't seem to be heroes or leaders without putting men down. That was kind of the point of the video for those of you who didn't watch.  :)

Quoted from Grandma Bear What she talks about is how this wokeness and cancel culture is forcing movies to fit into this ideal and by doing so making movies bad.

Can anyone explain, explicitly, how "wokeness" or whatever "forces" Hollywood to do anything?

Who are the people doing the forcing, and who are the people being forced?

Quoted from Heretic Who are the people doing the forcing, and who are the people being forced?

Those in charge are doing the forcing, and those who want to work in the industry are the ones being forced.

Quoted from Heretic Can anyone explain, explicitly, how "wokeness" or whatever "forces" Hollywood to do anything? Who are the people doing the forcing, and who are the people being forced?

You have to be woke or you might get cancelled as in boycotted and no one wants to be that. Especially not when you're selling a product and that's how you make a living.

Quoted from Zack Those in charge are doing the forcing

Like who? The CEOs are "woke"? The board members are "woke"? The chairmen are "woke"? Personally I would describe the entire corporate structure and business model of every major film company as completely non-woke: entirely profit-driven, dependent on underpaying and overworking the below-the-line crew, enabling of sexual harassment and assault, etc. etc. I don't think the people running this industry are "woke."

Unless you mean that they are only pretending to be "woke," in which case the problem is them, not the ideology.

Quoted from Grandma Bear You have to be woke or you might get cancelled as in boycotted and no one wants to be that. Especially not when you're selling a product and that's how you make a living.

How often does this happen? Are there really large numbers of people whose otherwise successful careers have ended when they merely expressed an un-woke opinion?

(Actually I can think of one, sort of...this asshole made my friend's life hell for two years before they finally got him pushed out: https://www.salon.com/2021/05/12/he-made-their-lives-miserable-how-the-showrunner-of-a-popular-courtroom-drama-finally-got-fired/

Note that it took two full years, many people quitting, and many other people organizing to get any traction with the higher-ups.)

Quoted from Heretic Unless you mean that they are only pretending to be "woke," in which case the problem is them, not the ideology.

That's exactly what I mean. They pretend to be woke, and push the woke narrative in their products, out of fear that the REAL cult of woke will cancel their products.  

Then first of all, why are you blaming "the woke cult" for decisions made by a bunch of non-woke multi-millionaire execs? If you don't like a decision, it seems like the obvious people to blame are the people who have the power in making the decision.

And how does the "woke cult" have so much power? Do they represent a significant portion of the market and have economic power? If so, they are just the "mainstream" and it's just Hollywood catering as usual. If not -- and surely the answer is not -- then what magical power do they use to "cancel" things?

Is there a major Hollywood movie that has been "cancelled" by the woke? Is there a major Hollywood creative who has been "cancelled" by the woke? If executives are really scared of this, shouldn't we expect it to have happened a couple times?

Quoted from Heretic Then first of all, why are you blaming "the woke cult" for decisions made by a bunch of non-woke multi-millionaire execs? If you don't like a decision, it seems like the obvious people to blame are the people who have the power in making the decision.

I blame the woke cult because they are the ones demanding things they deem "un-woke" to be canceled.

And I blame the execs for giving into the demands of a hateful cult.

And I blame MYSELF for letting all this stupid shit get to me. Ugh.

We clearly don't agree, but that's all good. No harm, no foul. :)

Quoted from Heretic Then first of all, why are you blaming "the woke cult" for decisions made by a bunch of non-woke multi-millionaire execs? If you don't like a decision, it seems like the obvious people to blame are the people who have the power in making the decision. And how does the "woke cult" have so much power? Do they represent a significant portion of the market and have economic power? If so, they are just the "mainstream" and it's just Hollywood catering as usual. If not -- and surely the answer is not -- then what magical power do they use to "cancel" things? Is there a major Hollywood movie that has been "cancelled" by the woke? Is there a major Hollywood creative who has been "cancelled" by the woke? If executives are really scared of this, shouldn't we expect it to have happened a couple times?

Good, God you couldn't be more on point. This is it exactly. The CEO OF WOKENESS doesn't call up a studio and say - lookie here, you know that male commander you have in your next Sci-fi film. We want him replaced with a female commander. Oh, and while you're at it... could you please make it look like she didn't really earn her stripes and she disdains men. ...Thank you.

Studios try to cater to what they think we want so that they can sell tickets and make money. Sometimes they nail it. Sometimes they screw the pooch. It could very well be that the same mindset that brought us a strong character like Ripley in Aliens is the same mindset that brought us purpled hair Laura Dern. In the former they nailed it. In the latter they didn't. OR - for all we effing know the writer wanted a character that believes she is entitled simply because she is a woman or has a disdain for man versus having a man vs. woman agenda.

Cheers Dave!

And cheers Zack. Yep we definitely won't agree, but that's all good for sure! :)

***

I've asked a bunch of questions. My thoughts:

There are lots of groups demanding that things be canceled. It seems to me that Hollywood generally ignores all of them, except the ones with financial power (for example: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/07/the-muzzling-of-michael-winterbottom-how-sony-censored-greed).

Small but dedicated groups do get companies to change unimportant things -- people got the Snyder cut released, people got Sonic's appearance changed, and more power to 'em. But the idea that any of these groups have any sort of significant power over the direction of Hollywood movies -- including the "woke," which as described represent a very small portion of society and therefore a very small portion of ticket sales -- seems quite far-fetched to me.

Hollywood movies ARE pretty bad right now and they DO have a bunch of moronic, corporate-approved "woke" messaging. This is currently standard for North American business. To choose an extreme example, the CIA also has a bunch of moronic, corporate-approved "woke" messaging (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-releases-new-video-in-woke-recruitment-ad-series-amid-criticism/). The CIA is, to put it mildly, not woke. So I'm thinking maybe "woke" messaging isn't a good barometer for whether an organization is actually adhering to "woke" ideals.

Quoted from Heretic Can anyone explain, explicitly, how "wokeness" or whatever "forces" Hollywood to do anything? Who are the people doing the forcing, and who are the people being forced?

That's a broader question to explain why any idea takes root and forms groupthink.

Many simply want to benefit from the reputational, and by extension, commercial benefits to singing off the same songsheet.

It doesn't take a lot of ideologically motivated individuals to enforce groupthink; it's aided by cowardice and examples of 'cancel culture' to push others to toe the line, or, in other words, choosing career > truth.

Having worked on Hollywood productions, it's a perfect representation of craven sycophancy. People want their next jobs, and will follow most avenues to get there.

It's why you see most of the very top tier talent rarely pushing this nonsense in their own personal communications. Tom Cruise doesn't need to speak woke nonsense to get ahead.

Middle tier / aspirational talent most certainly do. There's a clear competitive advantage to speak "wokese" (excellent primer here: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/woke-language-privilege), and it may be the difference to getting a job or not as we see star power wane (actors being the attraction rather than the property).

As for who is coordinating it; as mentioned, you only need to insert a handful of ideologically motivated individuals to outpower a general feeling of "avoid politics and religion" and thus capsize a politically neutral workplace.

Hollywood is no different to any other industry in being susceptible to the prevailing political winds, and it is here where the most significant conversations is: the ideas.

These are simply bad ideas that are being amplified by Hollywood; from commercial calculation (we include x and y and we will sell more tickets) to religious fervour to the idea (the absurd idea that the US is a white supremacy; absurd because facts do not support the claim, and people forget the difference between correlation and causation).

There is a complacent belief in an organic uprising in response to completely unacceptable racism, sexism and bigotry rooted in the past that will give way to a natural course correction to return us to a more even footing. I would agree with this if it were not for the overwhelming body of evidence in literature about the roots - and intent - of the ideas undergirding what's happening and manifesting in such phenomena as cancel culture, etc.

My argument is this is not a spontaneous uprising against an understandable - and justified - desire to right historic wrongs, but is actually rooted in a pernicious ideology dating back to postmodern thinkers like Focault and Derrida.

The postmodernists work was built upon with the Focauldian emphasis on power-knowledge, and the Derridian emphasis on deconstruction. It birthed ideas in the 70s, 80s and 90s that have now gone mainstream, and Hollywood is one organ of its growth. A critical one, but the ideas don't ome from Hollywood; it's simply spread from there.

Quoted from Heretic Hollywood movies ARE pretty bad right now and they DO have a bunch of moronic, corporate-approved "woke" messaging. This is currently standard for North American business. To choose an extreme example, the CIA also has a bunch of moronic, corporate-approved "woke" messaging (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-releases-new-video-in-woke-recruitment-ad-series-amid-criticism/). The CIA is, to put it mildly, not woke. So I'm thinking maybe "woke" messaging isn't a good barometer for whether an organization is actually adhering to "woke" ideals.

This is what the purview of the video is about: the ostentatious display of woke ideas fused with unsavoury levels of entitlement and obnoxiousness.

It's like the outry around Selma. An average movie, at best, that was treated like a shoehorn for an Oscar because Ava DuVernay directed it.

Or Elizabeth Banks equating the failure of her movie as being linked only to sexism. Why did Green Lantern fail? Why did superhero movies fail to get critical acclaim for so long? Because the quality wasn't there. I have sympathy with trhe fact there are lesser numbers of female led movies, so when they fail the % is higher, so the assumption is made on why it failed, and the easy answer is an -ism. It doesn't make it so. It means we need a bigger sample size, and believing in the marketplace of ideas.

But, of course, it's much easier to blame others for the failure of a film than to look inwards. It's this arrogance, condescension and entitlement that the video rightly calls out. People pushing this type of stuff usually think they're the smartest person in the room, yet seldom are.

What about the belief that we must see representation at the awards? Why? It's backwards thinking. You reward quality and reinforce meritocracy, regardless of the identity bona fides involved.

To address concerns around representation, it's about financing. Finance filmmakers to realise their visions. Don't insist on characters being x and y, or making that character a cookie cutter political message. It simply creates uninspiring work and rightly pisses people off who want to be entertained rather than preached at. And entertainment doesn't have to be action and crashes; it comes in many forms, and all forms of entertainment are diluted by hackneyed politicial messaging.

The frustrating thing about this conversation is we all dislike woke nonsense. We are just debating at cross purposes.

Quoted from Grandma Bear This is kind of funny because politics always get people riled up and start arguing or at least pipe up with their point of view regardless of where the discussion started. I watched the video. The whole thing. Even paused SOTU on CNN to do so. The video was actually about how this affects the movies. A medium we all try to write for, so extra funny/interesting that so few watched it. Her point was that wokeness, a stupid word to begin with IMO. A new badge people like to wear so other know they are a good person and not some neanderthal. What she talks about is how this wokeness and cancel culture is forcing movies to fit into this ideal and by doing so making movies bad. Mainly by having female heroes be heroes, which is fine, but they are heroes and superheroes without earning it. Therefore, no one can relate to them. Not even women which is half of the audience. Also, they can't seem to be heroes or leaders without putting men down. That was kind of the point of the video for those of you who didn't watch.  :)

This is right and on point.

The purview of the discussion was expanded beyond the video, which is amusing when almost everyone agrees with the core frustration of politics grating in what's supposed to be art.

We all know modern female empowerment figures empower women less than Ripley or Sarah Connor, and are also much less interesting characters.

Can you provide an example from Foucault, Derrida, or a postmodern philosopher that clearly (or unclearly -- this is the humanities after all, ho ho) expresses this pernicious ideology?

The Tablet article states that "wokese is a tool that is most easily wielded by the credentialed elite—which suggests that the allegedly vulnerable cohorts in whose name this language is allegedly spoken are actually being used by others as rhetorical camouflage." So shouldn't we be focusing on challenging the privileged few at the top of this hierarchy? Wouldn't analyzing that power structure be more useful than analyzing the "rhetorical camouflage" of wokeness? Why is everyone always talking about wokeness?

Quoted from Heretic Can you provide an example from Foucault, Derrida, or a postmodern philosopher that clearly (or unclearly -- this is the humanities after all, ho ho) expresses this pernicious ideology? The Tablet article states that "wokese is a tool that is most easily wielded by the credentialed elite—which suggests that the allegedly vulnerable cohorts in whose name this language is allegedly spoken are actually being used by others as rhetorical camouflage." So shouldn't we be focusing on challenging the privileged few at the top of this hierarchy? Wouldn't analyzing that power structure be more useful than analyzing the "rhetorical camouflage" of wokeness? Why is everyone always talking about wokeness?

You're employing an interesting strategy, and I'll call you on it: keep probing for proof, limiting your own input. It's one of those debating strategies that allows you to keep your hands clean.

Do you disagree there is an applied postmodernism in contemporary ideas, expressed and known as, woke?

Buuut, to answer the question, intersectionality is birthed from postmodernism.

Postcolonial theory also directly birthed from Derrida's deconstruction.

Focault and Derrida (and others) didn't create identity politics / wokeness, of course; they created a framework that has been adapted and applied through theories (emphasis on theory) such as intersectionality.

My head just fucking exploded.

Quoted Text What about the belief that we must see representation at the awards? Why? It's backwards thinking. You reward quality and reinforce meritocracy, regardless of the identity bona fides involved.

Really an over-simplification. The origin of the issue is why we don't see minority representation at the awards and could that be as result of things like racism?  i.e., are we in fact not rewarding quality and reinforcing meritocracy because we are seeing things through racial and gender filters?

Take football as an example. Forgetting for a fact that there wasn't a single black player in the NFL in 1946, there wasn't a single black quarterback until 1968. And for several decades after that, hardly any at all despite the fact that league had become predominately black. Christ, Hall of Famer Warren Moon had to go and play in Canada for the first six years of his career.  There was never a black quarterback drafted number one until 2000. As opposed to last year when a record ten black QBs started and half of those are considered to be in the top ten of the NFL.

So those black football players for the last 100 years would say - meritocracy - huh???? What's that?

And, as humans when we finally accept a wrong, we tend to over-correct. Hollywood is surely doing that now. But it fades and is never ever as egregious as the crapped that caused it.

You would want us to believe that this is all rooted in a nefarious movement started by two dead philosophers years ago rather than as a reaction to real and sometimes perceived injustice.  Most people couldn't name two supreme court justices let alone two philosophers.  

So no one really disagrees that there is a wokeness permeating in film and other arts. No one disagrees that it ain't ideal. Several disagree on how long lasting and pervasive it is.  So when hyperbolic views (Everything wrong with Woke Culture (and the impact on feminism) are put to video - I yawn. The title alone is click bait. And the reason is because it's designed to be  hyberbolic because it ignores root causes. Affirmative Action in college admissions is an example - You can argue it was an over reaction. WHat you can't argue is that it had it's roots in George Wallace standing at the door of the University of Alabama denying black admissions.

Long winded way of saying that the perceived tradegy from the over correction is generally less impactful than the actual tradgey caused by the thing it was over correcting.

So rather than this being labeled Everything wrong with Woke Culture (and the impact on feminism)- it would be more accurately labeled - hey, here are a few movies where they got wokeism wrong,  Next....

Quoted from Andrew You're employing an interesting strategy, and I'll call you on it: keep probing for proof, limiting your own input. It's one of those debating strategies that allows you to keep your hands clean. Do you disagree there is an applied postmodernism in contemporary ideas, expressed and known as, woke?

I called attention to this myself when I said that I had asked a lot of questions and would now share my thoughts. Then I shared my thoughts.

My question about sources is sincere. I see Derrida and Foucault get mentioned often in these discussions. I genuinely don't know what specifically people are thinking about/referencing. I would be interested to know if there are specific works or passages that people object to. Same with postcolonialism, same with intersectionality. What are people taking as the dominant expression of these topics? Whose position, exactly, are they arguing against? If everyone knows that these people are to blame, shouldn't someone tell me what I can read to understand how and why they are to blame?

Partly because of this confusion, I don't know how to answer your question satisfactorily. I do agree that postmodernism has had a lasting effect on society. I don't think that effect has translated to significant, real-world change at this time, but I don't think that it couldn't. I don't think that the term "woke" adequately describes any real-world phenomenon, because some people use it as a pejorative and others as a compliment. I think there is very little overlap between the "wokeism" of civil rights activists and the "wokeism" of Disney movies. I think much of the anti-wokeness rhetoric I see is specifically designed to collapse this distinction.

And as long as we're talking about academic influence on mainstream ideas, I do think that people have been using this general structure of argument to assert right-wing influence on cultural institutions since William F. Buckley Jr. founded this tired subgenre in 1951 with God and Man at Yale. I think the "wokeness" argument going on in popular culture is just a boring retread of the slightly more interesting but still boring "canon wars" of the 80s and early 90s. And I think Harold Bloom and Allan Bloom were a lot more fun to engage with than these YouTube people.

Quoted from eldave1 Really an over-simplification. The origin of the issue is why we don't see minority representation at the awards and could that be as result of things like racism?  i.e., are we in fact not rewarding quality and reinforcing meritocracy because we are seeing things through racial and gender filters?

I think the disconnect between our views hinges on this.

I don't think we form our view on meritoracy or equality on correcting the past, but on the principles we want to form the future.

So factoring representation into awards might work out towards balancing out the past, but it does nothing to cultivate equality for the future. It simply flips the wrongs of the past in a different direction.

The biggest problem with woke politics is how backwards looking it is. It's a sorry irony it has been labelled progressive.

The way to set the course for equality is to reinforce the sanctity of the individual, unbiased treatment and, in the case of film, focusing on quality rather than what boxes are ticked.

Have films by / with / including ethnic minorities been ignored due to racism in the past? Almost certainly. Does it mean we should overrepresent or try and atone by favouring certain categories to apologise for that? No. Absolutely not. It's patronising to ethnic minorities and is not even serving the goal of equality, which is to be blind to the identity.

As I say, representation gets addressed at the financing stage.

I don't want to watch *insert identity marker here* films. I want to watch films about story.

Look at Brokeback Mountain. One of the greastest movies of this century. It wasn't a gay cowboy movie. It was a movie about love. The sexuality of the characters was transcended by the universiality of love and loss. Themes we can all relate to.

Had Brokeback been made in 2020, it would be claimed in the identity wars. That's how film has regressed.

Film is there to show our commonalities, not to pigeonhole us on identity charateristics we have no control over.

Quoted from Heretic I called attention to this myself when I said that I had asked a lot of questions and would now share my thoughts. Then I shared my thoughts. My question about sources is sincere. I see Derrida and Foucault get mentioned often in these discussions. I genuinely don't know what specifically people are thinking about/referencing. I would be interested to know if there are specific works or passages that people object to. Same with postcolonialism, same with intersectionality. What are people taking as the dominant expression of these topics? Whose position, exactly, are they arguing against? If everyone knows that these people are to blame, shouldn't someone tell me what I can read to understand how and why they are to blame? Partly because of this confusion, I don't know how to answer your question satisfactorily. I do agree that postmodernism has had a lasting effect on society. I don't think that effect has translated to significant, real-world change at this time, but I don't think that it couldn't. I don't think that the term "woke" adequately describes any real-world phenomenon, because some people use it as a pejorative and others as a compliment. I think there is very little overlap between the "wokeism" of civil rights activists and the "wokeism" of Disney movies. I think much of the anti-wokeness rhetoric I see is specifically designed to collapse this distinction. And as long as we're talking about academic influence on mainstream ideas, I do think that people have been using this general structure of argument to assert right-wing influence on cultural institutions since William F. Buckley Jr. founded this tired subgenre in 1951 with God and Man at Yale. I think the "wokeness" argument going on in popular culture is just a boring retread of the slightly more interesting but still boring "canon wars" of the 80s and early 90s. And I think Harold Bloom and Allan Bloom were a lot more fun to engage with than these YouTube people.

My feeling is much of your thinking here rests on the left / right axis.

It's uncomfortable for me to be debating constantly with people on the left about these issues when I'm also on the left. Like some weird sort of factionalism.

I do think certain elements of the right have coopted 'wokeism' as a political tool. However, I think many of the right have been much more alert to these issues, for much longer, than the left.

It's a real quirk to me that so much of my fellow left are completely unwilling to address the woke issue. And yes, woke is a slippery term, and it requires a thesis to actually get anywhere on it.

So we have to try and simplify it all:

- What are your hopes for society?
- What is fairness?
- What is equality?
- Is freedom of speech sancrosanct?
- Is due process sancrosanct?

And many more.

But there are plenty other tenets of this new thinking we need to see where people stand on:

- Is it possible to be racist towards whites?
- Is white privilege real? Or is it class privilege?

And on and on.

Because all the fluff and talk aside, it comes down to these sort of questions. Where do people stand on those types of questions.

Quoted from Heretic My question about sources is sincere. I see Derrida and Foucault get mentioned often in these discussions. I genuinely don't know what specifically people are thinking about/referencing. I would be interested to know if there are specific works or passages that people object to. Same with postcolonialism, same with intersectionality. What are people taking as the dominant expression of these topics? Whose position, exactly, are they arguing against? If everyone knows that these people are to blame, shouldn't someone tell me what I can read to understand how and why they are to blame?

P.S Not ignoring this. It's just you're asking deep philosophical questions that require significant answers. It's not a quick reply here.

I'm certain you're familiar with intersectionality and the postmodernists, so do know the references I'm making, and you're posing a deeper dive on it. Which I'm not opposed to, but it's difficult to address in this type of forum, which is my fault for taking there in the first place.

I watched the entire video and obviously she's correct. It's amazing the effect the establishment can have on our psyche. Make no mistake, what she said in that video is what most people know to be true. However, the establishment tries to trick us into believing otherwise. It works.

The next phase of this, however, will be fascinating to watch play out. Caitlyn Jenner running as a Republican governor of California may just be the start of a new phase. People of color, women, trans, who're NOT a part of the WOKE cult will be the ones to destroy it.

Quoted Text The way to set the course for equality is to reinforce the sanctity of the individual, unbiased treatment and, in the case of film, focusing on quality rather than what boxes are ticked.

Yeah...of course it is. Who would argue against that? But the real question is -  how do you achieve that goal when simply stating it doesn't move the needle?   In other words, if you believed that there was an underrepresentation of participation by a particular group based on nothing other than the race or gender of that group - what steps do you take to correct that?

You might just do something woke.

Again, with the NFL. They had a dearth of black head coaches. They believed that it was due to bias, They could have just said - hey, don't be bias. Instead, they implemented the Rooney rule requiring all teams to interview ethnic-minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs regardless of whether they were the most qualified. Very, very, woke. Founded on the assumption that black individuals were disadvantage based on their skin color. Fast forward - more black head coaches hired.  

So, what worked there - a statement that says we reinforce the sanctity of the individual - or was it wokeness?  I would argue the latter.

Does it turn out to be counterproductive sometimes ----- yup. As do most things

Quoted from Andrew Buuut, to answer the question, intersectionality is birthed from postmodernism. Postcolonial theory also directly birthed from Derrida's deconstruction. Focault and Derrida (and others) didn't create identity politics / wokeness, of course; they created a framework that has been adapted and applied through theories (emphasis on theory) such as intersectionality.

Someone's been listening to Michael Knowles  :P

Quoted from Warren Someone's been listening to Michael Knowles  :P

Had to look him up as didn’t know who he was! But he definitely has a strong hairdo, in all fairness.

Quoted from eldave1 Yeah...of course it is. Who would argue against that? But the real question is -  how do you achieve that goal when simply stating it doesn't move the needle?   In other words, if you believed that there was an underrepresentation of participation by a particular group based on nothing other than the race or gender of that group - what steps do you take to correct that? You might just do something woke. Again, with the NFL. They had a dearth of black head coaches. They believed that it was due to bias, They could have just said - hey, don't be bias. Instead, they implemented the Rooney rule requiring all teams to interview ethnic-minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs regardless of whether they were the most qualified. Very, very, woke. Founded on the assumption that black individuals were disadvantage based on their skin color. Fast forward - more black head coaches hired.   So, what worked there - a statement that says we reinforce the sanctity of the individual - or was it wokeness?  I would argue the latter. Does it turn out to be counterproductive sometimes ----- yup. As do most things

How we equalise opportunity is the big question of the day.

No one really knows, of course, because the best intentions often go awry.

The NFL head coach example is a good one because it locks in opportunity rather than outcome.

The problem with much else woke is it focuses on the outcome only. And sees a reversal of inequality as a necessary step. Young white kids of 2021 shouldn’t be punished for the sins of white people from the 17-1900s. Obvious statement, but people are tolerating - and encouraging - it in the name of equality. It’s why we must ruthlessly focus on opportunity.

The main goal must be to bring all fairminded people around common cause. I’m a moderate at heart, and have always disliked the extremes. Post-Obama, that extreme was the Tea Party; ever since Trump it’s been the woke. It’s the fact the Tea Party wanted changes within liberal democracy, whereas the woke want to replace it, that we have to be mindful of.

What’s obvious is there’s a real lack of leadership on the global stage to set the tone.

I'm noticing a trend of non white, non straight voices on the right. Dinesh D'Souza, Eric July, Officer Tatum, Candace Owens, Dave Rubin, Milo back in the day, Dan Bongino, and more.

But now it's almost becoming woke vs non-woke. Or, crazy vs non-crazy 😂

Quoted from Andrew How we equalise opportunity is the big question of the day. No one really knows, of course, because the best intentions often go awry. The NFL head coach example is a good one because it locks in opportunity rather than outcome. The problem with much else woke is it focuses on the outcome only. And sees a reversal of inequality as a necessary step. Young white kids of 2021 shouldn’t be punished for the sins of white people from the 17-1900s. Obvious statement, but people are tolerating - and encouraging - it in the name of equality. It’s why we must ruthlessly focus on opportunity. The main goal must be to bring all fairminded people around common cause. I’m a moderate at heart, and have always disliked the extremes. Post-Obama, that extreme was the Tea Party; ever since Trump it’s been the woke. It’s the fact the Tea Party wanted changes within liberal democracy, whereas the woke want to replace it, that we have to be mindful of. What’s obvious is there’s a real lack of leadership on the global stage to set the tone.

As a note, the extreme after Trump hasn't just been the woke. Um... we had like an insurrection - remember? Those weren't woke people in the Capital or woke politicians wanting to throw out the vote. Add the Q-anon movement to that mix, egregious stabs at voter suppression, etc and I think you can see that of the extremes, the woke extreme is not near the worst of them.

And my point is that it is a given to say that equalizing opportunity rather than outcome is the ideal - we agree 100% on that. The question remains - how does one achieve that within structures that are racists or gender-biased to start with?  Just stating the ideal doesn't do anything. And part of "woke" is a recognition that problems still remain and have remained for far too effing long and concrete things need to be done to correct that. In that view, woke should not be a pejorative any more than liberal or conservative should be.

Andrew, it is odd we disagree on this so much sense I sense our actual politics are very much in-line with each other.  I am very much a fiscally conservative, moderate democrat.  Could be we are just talking at cross-purposes. Perhaps we only disagree not the degree of the impact. I think we both agree that dysfunctional wokeness is wrong/counter-productive. Perhaps our real disagreement is the severity and future of it's existence versus the problems it is attempting to address.  I probably think it is far less pervasive than you do and think it will fade into the sunset. Who knows.

Quoted from Andrew It's a real quirk to me that so much of my fellow left are completely unwilling to address the woke issue.

Nobody has yet been able to explain what the "woke issue" is in any concrete terms.

Questions of mine that might help me figure it out have gone unanswered:

Quoted from Heretic How often does this happen? Are there really large numbers of people whose otherwise successful careers have ended when they merely expressed an un-woke opinion?

Quoted from Heretic Is there a major Hollywood movie that has been "cancelled" by the woke? Is there a major Hollywood creative who has been "cancelled" by the woke?

If some insidious ideology has taken over Hollywood, why haven't we talked about a single concrete example of that ideology's effects here? Is it possibly because there are few to no concrete examples, because this is all internet nonsense?

It seems to me the chief complaint is just that Hollywood movies suck, and also contain woke messaging. Well, I watch absolutely everything, and the movies with no or anti-woke messaging also suck. So...

Quoted from Heretic Nobody has yet been able to explain what the "woke issue" is in any concrete terms. Questions of mine that might help me figure it out have gone unanswered: If some insidious ideology has taken over Hollywood, why haven't we talked about a single concrete example of that ideology's effects here? Is it possibly because there are few to no concrete examples, because this is all internet nonsense? It seems to me the chief complaint is just that Hollywood movies suck, and also contain woke messaging. Well, I watch absolutely everything, and the movies with no or anti-woke messaging also suck. So...

So, you do know what woke means.

With that out of the way, the cult of woke, or social justice, has in general turned film into a shit fest.

You're right, a film doesn't have to have a woke message for a film to suck, but a woke message means it will suck.

But I'm of the old school that a screenwriter shouldn't preach, nor hate the audience.

Robert Mckee's respect thine audience has been morphed into, call thine audience racist/sexist. 😂

Films have declined because story has been replaced with the cult of social justice. Even if the film does not have a social justice cause in it, many of the people choosing scripts, working on the films, ARE of the cult of that cult - or pretend to be.

And if you've ever encountered any of these woke people the one thing they lack is humility. This is why they are inherently bad at story. The left thinks they are already perfect and wonderful, and often that's how their leads are. The video posted above made reference to this.

The female or non white heroines are wonderful, and all the stupid white men below them need to get up to their level.

This is how they think as well as how they write. This is why, even if it's not a vehicle for social or gender justice, the films still suck. They're not so much writers, as they are preachers.

Quoted Text So, you do know what woke means.

Of course he does - he had said so. He said he doesn't know what the woke issue means in concrete terms. i.e., where is the specific damage.

Quoted Text With that out of the way, the cult of woke, or social justice, has in general turned film into a shit fest.

Guessing this is part of his question. So generally - films are a shit fest due to wokeness. So, on my ask something akin to - of these top box office films:


1     Bad Boys for Life     
2     1917
3     Sonic the Hedgehog     
4     Jumanji: The Next Level
5     Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker     
6     Birds of Prey     
7     Dolittle     
8     Little Women     
9     The Invisible Man     
10     The Call of the Wild     
11     Onward     
12     Tenet     
13     Knives Out     
14     Frozen II     
15     Spies in Disguise
16     The Gentlemen     
17     Just Mercy
18     The Croods: A New Age
19     Parasite
20     Fantasy Island

Which were ruined due to wokeness. If not these - was the next 20? The 20 after that???

Quoted Text Films have declined because story has been replaced with the cult of social justice. Even if the film does not have a social justice cause in it, many of the people choosing scripts, working on the films, ARE of the cult of that cult - or pretend to be.

See again - that's what he is asking - which films - which parts of them - has this happened too? Which films were not made because of wokeness?

Quoted Text And if you've ever encountered any of these woke people the one thing they lack is humility. This is why they are inherently bad at story.

Which ones?

Quoted Text The left thinks they are already perfect and wonderful, and often that's how their leads are. The video posted above made reference to this.

What is The Left - Is it Bill Mahr who rails against cancel culture. Bill Burr? James Carville? Obama????? (His quote = “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Mr. Obama said. “You should get over that quickly.”
“The world is messy; there are ambiguities,” he continued. “People who do really good stuff have flaws.

Cancel Culture is not a Right or Left issue  - Isn't boycotting NFL games because players kneel during the anthem cancel culture? Isn't boycotting Coke because they were against Georgia's voting laws cancel culture. Isn't shut up and dribble cancel culture?

Quoted Text The female or non white heroines are wonderful, and all the stupid white men below them need to get up to their level.

Back to Ben's points - probably a few issues of this - but really, in the grand scheme of things - how many films didn't this really ruin?

Quoted Text This is how they think as well as how they write. This is why, even if it's not a vehicle for social or gender justice, the films still suck. They're not so much writers, as they are preachers.

Who are the "they" that shifted from writing to preaching.  Only when to tell if your statement makes sense. If you want to say that Michael Moore is more of a preacher than a documentarian - okay - I'm with you - get that.  But so are right-wingers like  Dinesh D’Souza. So, who are the writers you are specifically referencing?  

I think that was Ben's issue - specifics please so he can understand exactly what films and writers have ruined filmmaking due to wokeness.

Quoted from eldave1 As a note, the extreme after Trump hasn't just been the woke. Um... we had like an insurrection - remember? Those weren't woke people in the Capital or woke politicians wanting to throw out the vote. Add the Q-anon movement to that mix, egregious stabs at voter suppression, etc and I think you can see that of the extremes, the woke extreme is not near the worst of them. And my point is that it is a given to say that equalizing opportunity rather than outcome is the ideal - we agree 100% on that. The question remains - how does one achieve that within structures that are racists or gender-biased to start with?  Just stating the ideal doesn't do anything. And part of "woke" is a recognition that problems still remain and have remained for far too effing long and concrete things need to be done to correct that. In that view, woke should not be a pejorative any more than liberal or conservative should be. Andrew, it is odd we disagree on this so much sense I sense our actual politics are very much in-line with each other.  I am very much a fiscally conservative, moderate democrat.  Could be we are just talking at cross-purposes. Perhaps we only disagree not the degree of the impact. I think we both agree that dysfunctional wokeness is wrong/counter-productive. Perhaps our real disagreement is the severity and future of it's existence versus the problems it is attempting to address.  I probably think it is far less pervasive than you do and think it will fade into the sunset. Who knows.

Oh, absolutely I think we are broadly in similar political spaces.

If anything, I think I probablty veer more traditional left, seeing as you identify as economically conservative. I believe there are factors built into our systems that disadvantage people at the bottom, and likely to a degree greater than an economic conservative.

Broadly, my view is the left is good at diagnosing problems re: economics, but lousy at solutions., It's why the message of unfairness resonates, but the solutions are routinely rejected at elections. Because those on the economic left do not believe in moderation, they do not believe in compromise, and they believe they hold a monopoly on good intentions.

Yes, there are conservatives who hold those views, too, but the right don't lose on core economic messages continually. And when I'm talking economic left, we all know this doesn't mean Obama, or Clinton. It means Sanders, and the idiot generation spearheaded by Ocasio-Cortez.

There's a reason woke politics generally don't appeal to the working class: they know your identity is not the reason for your situation in life. Can it exacerabate it? Yes. Define it? No. It's why many millions more white people are poor in the West than any other race. And by a great factor. It's like no one recognise demographics and the multiplying effect of majorities anymore. The working class reject the simplicity and posturing of wokeness beause they live it. They know the most fervent supporters of the woke viewpoint are wealthy "people of colour" and whites with a Jesus complex.

Where I hope you're right is that the woke madness will be looked upon in years to come as a McCarythite moral panic. Regardless of whether or not it does, the ideas are borne for the very serious intentions of changing society and replacing liberalism. Liberalism  (the philosophy) is seen as a product of white men, by white men, for white men. It locks up all the evils of the past and ties it into liberalism, as opposed to recognising it is liberialism (with its core tenets of freedom of speech, the sanctity of the individual, etc) that has unpicked much of the evil of the past, and is our best chance of equalising opportunity going forward.

The one core theme that is often missed when it comes to the working class (I use this as a catch all for people of all races at the bottom end of the economic scale) is the embrace of individual responsibility. A concept, sadly, that the left has entirely abandoned. So there is a strong holding to account for people blaming others, or failing to recognise the destructive behaviours that perpetuate outcomes. There's only so long you can blame "the system" for your lot in life.

So, really woke (or however we want to term the ideas we are all familair with) is a serious body of ideas used by a few to push a paradigm shift, and used by the many as a bourgeoisie display of moral viture, blithely unaware of the intention behind the ideas they're an empty vessel for. And that's really where I sit Hollywood, in the main.

Quoted from Andrew The one core theme that is often missed when it comes to the working class (I use this as a catch all for people of all races at the bottom end of the economic scale) is the embrace of individual responsibility. A concept, sadly, that the left has entirely abandoned. So there is a strong holding to account for people blaming others, or failing to recognise the destructive behaviours that perpetuate outcomes. There's only so long you can blame "the system" for your lot in life. So, really woke (or however we want to term the ideas we are all familair with) is a serious body of ideas used by a few to push a paradigm shift, and used by the many as a bourgeoisie display of moral viture, blithely unaware of the intention behind the ideas they're an empty vessel for. And that's really where I sit Hollywood, in the main.

Preach!  ;D

Quoted from Heretic Nobody has yet been able to explain what the "woke issue" is in any concrete terms. Questions of mine that might help me figure it out have gone unanswered: If some insidious ideology has taken over Hollywood, why haven't we talked about a single concrete example of that ideology's effects here? Is it possibly because there are few to no concrete examples, because this is all internet nonsense? It seems to me the chief complaint is just that Hollywood movies suck, and also contain woke messaging. Well, I watch absolutely everything, and the movies with no or anti-woke messaging also suck. So...

To be fair, I just really don't accept the premise of the questions.

You've framed the questions in a way that bolsters your view, whilst accepting the core basis that woke-ism is rampant. And undesirable. And negatively impacts film. I do beleve - and could be wrong - that it is because you're viewing the issue through the axis of left and right.

It's a case of having your cake and eating it :)

Quoted from eldave1 Of course he does - he had said so. He said he doesn't know what the woke issue means in concrete terms. i.e., where is the specific damage. Guessing this is part of his question. So generally - films are a shit fest due to wokeness. So, on my ask something akin to - of these top box office films: 1     Bad Boys for Life      2     1917 3     Sonic the Hedgehog      4     Jumanji: The Next Level 5     Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker      6     Birds of Prey      7     Dolittle      8     Little Women      9     The Invisible Man      10     The Call of the Wild      11     Onward      12     Tenet      13     Knives Out      14     Frozen II      15     Spies in Disguise 16     The Gentlemen      17     Just Mercy 18     The Croods: A New Age 19     Parasite 20     Fantasy Island Which were ruined due to wokeness. If not these - was the next 20? The 20 after that??? See again - that's what he is asking - which films - which parts of them - has this happened too? Which films were not made because of wokeness? Which ones? What is The Left - Is it Bill Mahr who rails against cancel culture. Bill Burr? James Carville? Obama????? (His quote = ďż˝This idea of purity and youďż˝re never compromised and youďż˝re always politically ďż˝wokeďż˝ and all that stuff,ďż˝ Mr. Obama said. ďż˝You should get over that quickly.ďż˝ ďż˝The world is messy; there are ambiguities,ďż˝ he continued. ďż˝People who do really good stuff have flaws. Cancel Culture is not a Right or Left issue  - Isn't boycotting NFL games because players kneel during the anthem cancel culture? Isn't boycotting Coke because they were against Georgia's voting laws cancel culture. Isn't shut up and dribble cancel culture? Back to Ben's points - probably a few issues of this - but really, in the grand scheme of things - how many films didn't this really ruin? Who are the "they" that shifted from writing to preaching.  Only when to tell if your statement makes sense. If you want to say that Michael Moore is more of a preacher than a documentarian - okay - I'm with you - get that.  But so are right-wingers like  Dinesh Dďż˝Souza. So, who are the writers you are specifically referencing?   I think that was Ben's issue - specifics please so he can understand exactly what films and writers have ruined filmmaking due to wokeness.

I've never liked Dinesh D'Souza's films - corny and preachy. I do enjoy listening to his podcast and general opinion, however. I'm not white, people think I am white, so I like to hilariously defer to people of color and watch the hilarity ensue.

I could find you a top ten list of scat films and dare you to find a gem in there, but I won't because the point is obvious. No matter how bad they do, there's always going to be a top 20. I mean, I have a top 20 list for my toenail clippings. lmao

There may be a gem in that list, but it's Hollywood's fault they've lost my trust, not the other way around. The decline of U.S. film is a failure entirely of Hollywood's making. Of course, it is. I promise, I'm not powerful enough to tank it on my own. I wish.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but the excuses are coming hard and fast. Last year the NBA went hard woke in the most cringy way imaginable, and their ratings tanked into the dirt. Then came the excuses. oh well uh covid, uh people were busy, blah blah. LOL

Same with the Oscars. Ratings tank into the dirt, and they can't even have a host because they can't find anyone willing to put up with their bullshit - and here come the excuses. Uh well, Covid, uhhhhh Trummmmp? (sure, why not?)

I keep seeing a lot of excuses for what we all know to be true. "Wokism" is destructive, awful in story, divisive and just plain boring. That's just how I feel. If you want concrete examples, the video Andrew provided does a pretty bang up job of it. I thank her for having to sit through those films and report back to you, because I sure as hell won't do it. LMAO

"Time to be powerful"
https://youtu.be/8LpFCJljb_g?t=4


(Somebody just shoot me)

I will just add this one here.

It's doubly sad we lost the Hitch when he would've done such an enormous service to society in expressing in what is wrong with discourse and the woke problem.

However, Peterson and Fry are also incredibly capable of articulating powerully the issues we are discussing in the broader sense.

Lengthy, but 110% worth your time.

I'm not America, I have no cards in the political game (thank f@#k), but I listen to a lot of political commentary, like a lot, mainly all from the right side of the political aisle, and while I don't agree with some things they say I do think they make a hell of a lot of sense.

My weekly routine is The Matt Walsh show every morning, Louder with Crowder on the way home and then a mix of Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan and Michael Knowles in between. All of these guys,to my mind, are very logical people that get labeled incredibly disgusting things a lot of the time.

All this to say that a few days ago Michael Knowles had a fantastic guest that really dug deep into woke culture.

Andrew this is what I was referencing...

The episode title is: Why Nothing Satisfies The Woke Culture

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zb3VuZGNsb3VkLmNvbS91c2Vycy9zb3VuZGNsb3VkOnVzZXJzOjMyMzEyNzIwNi9zb3VuZHMucnNz/episode/ZGE3ZDdmODAtYjQyZS0xMWViLWI3NmEtYzc0MWU0Zjc3MjI3?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiQgISyitfwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQCw&hl=en-AU

I think the political divide is so big and completely unmendable in the States so most people on the left probably wouldn't even give this a go because of preconceived notions about the people I've mentioned. My favourite being that Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, is a Nazi, brilliant stuff.

If it's something that really doesn't interest you, this would be a tough listen, but I think for anyone wanting to have a thoughtful and educated discussion about the issue then this is a great listen.

This is about as political as I'll get on SS and am tapping out of this thread straight after this post.

Thank god I live in Australia :)

Personally I do think films and TV shows are ruined by woke culture

From the list I saw these two definitely suffered:


     Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker    
     Birds of Prey

More recent TV shows that suffered:

The Falcon and The Winter Solider
Grand Army
Dear White People (I mean this knows what it is, and unashamedly so, but I definitely don't need to be preached to)
Shameless (this tries to out-woke itself with each new season)

It's not happening to every film and TV Show around but it is growing at a pretty big rate IMO. These days if I even get a hint of being preached to about any social issue I just find another show/movie so it really doesn't affect me in any massive way, but I do think it will get worse as we go. I'm not sure how far the pendulum has to swing before it swings back but I think some of the damage can't be undone, the woker it gets the more victim status there is to go round and people are very reluctant to relinquish a victim group. So the more we give now, the harder it will be to get back to any sort of normal.

All just my opinion, happy for you to have yours and happy for us to disagree :)

you can't just leave lol

Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro are awesome! Watch them all the time. I'll have to check out the others you have mentioned.

And I couldn't agree more about Birds of Prey and Star Wars 8&9, as well as Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. :X All of them are awful follow-ups to much better predecessors. And they are all awful for the same reason. "Woke-ness."

Another film destroyed by "Woke-ness"... Black Christmas 2019. :X

Quoted from Zack Another film destroyed by "Woke-ness"... Black Christmas 2019. :X

Budget:$5,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA: $4,240,245, 15 December 2019
Gross USA: $10,429,730
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $18,529,730

??)

Quoted from Andrew To be fair, I just really don't accept the premise of the questions. You've framed the questions in a way that bolsters your view, whilst accepting the core basis that woke-ism is rampant. And undesirable. And negatively impacts film. I do beleve - and could be wrong - that it is because you're viewing the issue through the axis of left and right.

The premise was supplied by the preceding comments from Zack and Pia explaining the problem with wokeness. If you don't agree with the framing I think its because everyone has a different view of how wokeness supposedly ruins movies. I think that's because no-one actually has the same definition of wokeness at all, which is why no-one is able to give one. And I think that's by design, because if you actually try to define wokeness the argument against it falls apart.

I don't accept that woke-ism is rampant, or undesirable, or negatively impacts film. I do accept that corporate woke-ism is all of those things. The distinction I'm making there is that original "wokeness" -- as in the term that Black Americans have been using for perhaps a century -- had some specific content. Corporate "wokeness," by contrast, is just companies doing what they always do -- catering to what they believe is the mainstream/the broadest possible category of potential customers. So just as the story and the comedy and the cinematography and the dialogue and the etc. etc. of, say, Captain Marvel are really dumbed-down and made accessible to the widest possible audience, so too is the "empowering message" of the movie. Black Christmas 2019 is another great example. Yes, that movie is awful, and it has a "woke" message. But everything else about it is also awful. We'd just be calling these movies bad movies, except that the conservatives have an axe to grind.

Which leads me to the final point that "wokeness," as many here are using it, is just a conservative/right-wing pejorative. This phrase is deliberately vague, because it's just the latest term in a long-running history of conservatives complaining that some insidious foreign ideology is corrupting the culture from within. It can't be specific because it doesn't actually mean anything other than "left-leaning aspects of our culture that we prefer didn't exist" -- and that's why we always end up at, "Oh, come on, you know what wokeness is, I don't have to tell you." This version of "wokeness" is basically indistinguishable from Peterson's nonsense phrase "postmodern neo-Marxism" or, 70 years ago, William F. Buckley's "collectivism." This is basically a historical constant -- people have always thought that their culture was falling apart after the values of a "golden age" in the past were corrupted, and have always identified some sort of creeping foreign influence as the cause of that corruption (usually this is combined with the idea of fearsome barbarians at the gates).

ANYway. I dunno. Yes, it's exciting to imagine apocalyptic scenarios where angry mobs of "woke" people are coming to get everyone, gathering in the shadows on college campuses and infiltrating Hollywood to spread their evil message. Thats why Shapiro and Knowles and all the rest are fun to listen to -- their fantasy worlds are alive and volatile and dangerous. But in the end I think it's the same dull thing. A bunch of hacks make some pseudo-progressive movies, a bunch of other hacks write books and make videos whining about those movies, and the public gives their preferred hacks some money before going home a littler angrier and a little dumber.

*

All that said, I'll listen to Fry/Peterson and report back, because Fry's great and Peterson always gives me a good laugh. I will offer Nathan Robinson's take on Peterson in return, which I think does a good job of illustrating what an absolute goof Peterson is: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Quick moderator check-in, amazed at the level of thoughtful, civilized discourse going on here.

Back in "the day" a thread like this would have melted the boards.

Kudos to those engaged with this.  Carry on.

Quoted from bert Quick moderator check-in, amazed at the level of thoughtful, civilized discourse going on here. Back in "the day" a thread like this would have melted the boards. Kudos to those engaged with this.  Carry on.

Nazi!

Hopefully that'll bring things back to the normal. I was worried the internet would break if someone wasn't willing to course-correct us here.

I've been actively trying to stay out of this, since these kind of things never seem to actually change anyone's minds and only serve as another way for people to divide themselves into camps...

But, I failed to stay out of it once, and now I'll make it twice...

Is there any room in this discussion for "woke" to be an actively held, legitimate stance? I mean, in this discussion, if a film has a "woke" message, it feels like it's automatically illegitimate and forced on us/them/whoever.

If an artist (writer, director, producer) thinks that racism is a problem and wants to make a film about it... isn't that legitimate artistic expression?

If a gay director wants to make a film centered on a lesbian lead... why is that somehow automatically less? In the anti-woke world, that director is dismissed out of hand as a puppet for the woke mob. Is that fair?

I'm just saying... for a moment, consider that it's possible for people to have legitimate, artistic, political, personal reasons for making "woke" material.

I believe The Invisible Man had some woke messages, but it was subtle and smart about it. It was never distracting. Really enjoyed the movie. :)

It’s a phase. Hollywood has done dumb stuff before, and will do it again. Right now it’s hot, but in six months it’ll be on to the next thing.

Hollywood, the Netflix show, was woke af. Way over the top trying to reimagine/correct a historical slight. I’d be surprised if it got picked up for a second season. It beat you over the head with the message.

Personally, I think video editorials like this amount to nothing more than click bait. Someone who a) can’t take it anymore or b) just wants the views, views and more views.

Quoted from SAC Hollywood, the Netflix show, was woke af. Way over the top trying to reimagine/correct a historical slight. I’d be surprised if it got picked up for a second season. It beat you over the head with the message.

Yes, maybe we can all agree on one thing... bad writing/material should be stamped out. :)

The Newsroom became unwatchable. I imagine Aaron Sorkin and I agree on much more than not... but, that show was SOOOO preachy it was boring. I finally turned it off. West Wing, one of my favorite shows ever... rode that line. Very close to being too much. I probably wouldn't have watched another season.

Point is... if something is good, we'll probably watch it, no matter the message. If it's bad, we won't. Double that for funny. I always say... you can do anything you want, as long as you're funny.  The funnier you are, the safer you are.

I'm probably way off topic... so, I'll punch out.

Quoted from PKCardinal I've been actively trying to stay out of this, since these kind of things never seem to actually change anyone's minds and only serve as another way for people to divide themselves into camps... But, I failed to stay out of it once, and now I'll make it twice... Is there any room in this discussion for "woke" to be an actively held, legitimate stance? I mean, in this discussion, if a film has a "woke" message, it feels like it's automatically illegitimate and forced on us/them/whoever. If an artist (writer, director, producer) thinks that racism is a problem and wants to make a film about it... isn't that legitimate artistic expression? If a gay director wants to make a film centered on a lesbian lead... why is that somehow automatically less? In the anti-woke world, that director is dismissed out of hand as a puppet for the woke mob. Is that fair? I'm just saying... for a moment, consider that it's possible for people to have legitimate, artistic, political, personal reasons for making "woke" material.

In my opinion...

There is a significant difference between the bigoted, woke stuff and say something like Moonlight, which simply attempts to tell a story. Or The American President, (The West Wing) which has its politics, but is fair and well done. It doesn't beat you over the head. imo

The woke mob tends to steal cherished franchises and pervert it with their bigoted anti-white/anti-male messaging.

Is it just a coincidence they're targeting films which have been traditionally loved by straight, and often, white men? Why would people, obsessed with racial and gender differences and who often have disdain for men, have some great interest in SUPERMAN or BATMAN, other than to destroy it?

Just today I read this news story: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot giving interviews only to journalists of color...

Quoted from Robert Timsah Is it just a coincidence they're targeting films which have been traditionally loved by straight, and often, white men? Why would people, obsessed with racial and gender differences and who often have disdain for men, have some great interest in SUPERMAN or BATMAN, other than to destroy it?

Some people honestly see a problem that by far, the majority of superheroes are white men. (I'm one of them.) Is it wrong for a black person to say, "Hey, I'd like to see someone that looks me portrayed in a heroic light?"

Additionally, put in the context that entertainment media has LONG portrayed black people as almost exclusively gang members or slaves, doesn't it make sense that a push for better black characters can come from a good place... and not some anti-white/anti-male place?

Why does equality equal anti-white/anti-male for so many people?

Finally, conservatives have brought this on themselves. They've been canceling people for hundreds of years. Turns out, people eventually get tired of it. You think Ellen DeGeneres felt picked on, to use your words, by: "people, obsessed with racial and gender differences and who often have disdain for [gays.]"

Of course, she did. So, when people like her demand to be treated like humans... it's not anti-male... it's pro decent human behavior.

Andrew:

Quoted Text If anything, I think I probablty veer more traditional left, seeing as you identify as economically conservative. I believe there are factors built into our systems that disadvantage people at the bottom, and likely to a degree greater than an economic conservative.

Just for clarification – when I say economically conservative, that is only in the context of I am favor of taxing at the level you want to spend.  e.g,, if you want a war with Iraq – tax to fund it. If you want to expand poverty programs – tax to fund it. I have no problem with big government per se. I have a problem with un-funded government. In my lifetime, both parties have been horrible on this. Dems are tax and spend. Republicans are Cut Taxes and spend. So in my view Republicans have been worse but neither party has been good.

Quoted Text Broadly, my view is the left is good at diagnosing problems re: economics, but lousy at solutions., It's why the message of unfairness resonates, but the solutions are routinely rejected at elections. Because those on the economic left do not believe in moderation, they do not believe in compromise, and they believe they hold a monopoly on good intentions.

Totally disagree, unless you insert Radical left in your premise and recognize that is not the majority left.  Sanders and Warren didn’t win the nomination – middle of the road Joe did. And obviously, the Left solutions are not rejected at the election – they just took over the Presidency, Senate and retained the House.

Quoted Text Yes, there are conservatives who hold those views, too, but the right don't lose on core economic messages continually. And when I'm talking economic left, we all know this doesn't mean Obama, or Clinton. It means Sanders, and the idiot generation spearheaded by Ocasio-Cortez.

Okay – maybe I am having a terminology problem with you. In my mind, the “Left” includes Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton – you know – the ones that win elections.  I view it kind of like this - I'l use college as an example.

1. FAR LEFT = COLLEGE SHOULD BE FREE TO EVERYONE
2. LEFT = COLLEGE SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
3. RIGHT = COLLEGE SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE
4. FAR RIGHT = YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.

Now groups two and three certainly will have rational discussions about the degree of the problem and the best solutions. But the core principle isn't a left or right thing.  Groups 1 and 4 are on the lunatic fringe and will never reach agreement and contaminate the discussion by labeling these as Left and Right positions when they are in fact FAR LEFT and FAR RIGHT discussion.

Quoted Text There's a reason woke politics generally don't appeal to the working class: they know your identity is not the reason for your situation in life. Can it exacerabate it? Yes. Define it? No. It's why many millions more white people are poor in the West than any other race. And by a great factor. It's like no one recognise demographics and the multiplying effect of majorities anymore. The working class reject the simplicity and posturing of wokeness beause they live it. They know the most fervent supporters of the woke viewpoint are wealthy "people of colour" and whites with a Jesus complex.

Again – this boils down to a lot of definitions.  If being woke means that you want to take Lincoln's name off of schools – yeah, you’re right. If woke means you believe that we ought not  fly confederate flags at State capitals – you’re wrong.

That’s probably one of the reasons it is difficult to discuss wokeness in broad terms (i.e., is it good or bad?). For example, I think the 1619 project resulted from a a woke mentality and it sucks. I also think the need to eliminate no-knock warrants arose from a woke mentality and it is a good thing.

Quoted Text Where I hope you're right is that the woke madness will be looked upon in years to come as a McCarythite moral panic. Regardless of whether or not it does, the ideas are borne for the very serious intentions of changing society and replacing liberalism. Liberalism  (the philosophy) is seen as a product of white men, by white men, for white men. It locks up all the evils of the past and ties it into liberalism, as opposed to recognising it is liberialism (with its core tenets of freedom of speech, the sanctity of the individual, etc) that has unpicked much of the evil of the past, and is our best chance of equalising opportunity going forward.

I believe it will not go away and instead morph into a much more optimal mindset as the crazy crap get filters out.  

Quoted Text The one core theme that is often missed when it comes to the working class (I use this as a catch all for people of all races at the bottom end of the economic scale) is the embrace of individual responsibility. A concept, sadly, that the left has entirely abandoned.

No, they haven’t in my view (see definition of Left above). I would argue that the many on the Left as I define them are merely trying to get frameworks that optimize the opportunity to exercise individual responsibility.

Quoted Text So there is a strong holding to account for people blaming others, or failing to recognise the destructive behaviours that perpetuate outcomes. There's only so long you can blame "the system" for your lot in life. So, really woke (or however we want to term the ideas we are all familair with) is a serious body of ideas used by a few to push a paradigm shift, and used by the many as a bourgeoisie display of moral viture, blithely unaware of the intention behind the ideas they're an empty vessel for. And that's really where I sit Hollywood, in the main.

Dysfguntional wokeism no more defines the Left than Q-anon defines the right.
====================================================
Again - I think we are probably not far off in may areas.  We're probably aguring about definitions.

Quoted from SAC It’s a phase. Hollywood has done dumb stuff before, and will do it again. Right now it’s hot, but in six months it’ll be on to the next thing. Hollywood, the Netflix show, was woke af. Way over the top trying to reimagine/correct a historical slight. I’d be surprised if it got picked up for a second season. It beat you over the head with the message. Personally, I think video editorials like this amount to nothing more than click bait. Someone who a) can’t take it anymore or b) just wants the views, views and more views.

Concur

Quoted from PKCardinal Some people honestly see a problem that by far, the majority of superheroes are white men. (I'm one of them.) Is it wrong for a black person to say, "Hey, I'd like to see someone that looks me portrayed in a heroic light?" Additionally, put in the context that entertainment media has LONG portrayed black people as almost exclusively gang members or slaves, doesn't it make sense that a push for better black characters can come from a good place... and not some anti-white/anti-male place? Why does equality equal anti-white/anti-male for so many people? Finally, conservatives have brought this on themselves. They've been canceling people for hundreds of years. Turns out, people eventually get tired of it. You think Ellen DeGeneres felt picked on, to use your words, by: "people, obsessed with racial and gender differences and who often have disdain for [gays.]" Of course, she did. So, when people like her demand to be treated like humans... it's not anti-male... it's pro decent human behavior.

Concur!

Quoted from PKCardinal I've been actively trying to stay out of this, since these kind of things never seem to actually change anyone's minds and only serve as another way for people to divide themselves into camps... But, I failed to stay out of it once, and now I'll make it twice... Is there any room in this discussion for "woke" to be an actively held, legitimate stance? I mean, in this discussion, if a film has a "woke" message, it feels like it's automatically illegitimate and forced on us/them/whoever. If an artist (writer, director, producer) thinks that racism is a problem and wants to make a film about it... isn't that legitimate artistic expression? If a gay director wants to make a film centered on a lesbian lead... why is that somehow automatically less? In the anti-woke world, that director is dismissed out of hand as a puppet for the woke mob. Is that fair? I'm just saying... for a moment, consider that it's possible for people to have legitimate, artistic, political, personal reasons for making "woke" material.

Concur!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted from PKCardinal Some people honestly see a problem that by far, the majority of superheroes are white men. (I'm one of them.) Is it wrong for a black person to say, "Hey, I'd like to see someone that looks me portrayed in a heroic light?" Additionally, put in the context that entertainment media has LONG portrayed black people as almost exclusively gang members or slaves, doesn't it make sense that a push for better black characters can come from a good place... and not some anti-white/anti-male place? Why does equality equal anti-white/anti-male for so many people? Finally, conservatives have brought this on themselves. They've been canceling people for hundreds of years. Turns out, people eventually get tired of it. You think Ellen DeGeneres felt picked on, to use your words, by: "people, obsessed with racial and gender differences and who often have disdain for [gays.]" Of course, she did. So, when people like her demand to be treated like humans... it's not anti-male... it's pro decent human behavior.

If somebody genuinely wants a black or female superhero, they could, oh I don't know - create an original one instead of stealing from evil whitey.

Ironically,

If a white man or woman today tried to write a social justice script focusing on a young black woman you know what they'd hear? They shouldn't be writing it. "Let a person of color tell that story".

You can't win. Nobody can.

The mob of social justice doesn't WANT a female superhero because it would make a great film.

They want to SUBJECT people (men, especially) to a female superhero, because they get off on it.

Imagine being a straight white male and somehow thinking that it is you who are disadvantaged and oppressed.

Quoted from bert Imagine being a straight white male and somehow thinking that it is you who are disadvantaged and oppressed.

I'm neither straight, nor white.

Quoted from Robert Timsah They want to SUBJECT people (men, especially) to a female superhero, because they get off on it.

Man. At a few hundred million a movie, that is one expensive kink.

Quoted from Robert Timsah If somebody genuinely wants a black or female superhero, they could, oh I don't know - create an original one instead of stealing from evil whitey.

I'm sorry, but that's a really weird statement.

But, just to make sure I understand you...

Is Marvel casting a black man as Captain America stealing from evil whitey?

Quoted from PKCardinal I'm sorry, but that's a really weird statement. But, just to make sure I understand you... Is Marvel casting a black man as Captain America stealing from evil whitey?

If they're genuinely interested in crafting cool stories surrounding non-white or non-male voices, then do it with original stories.

Quoted from Robert Timsah If they're genuinely interested in crafting cool stories surrounding non-white or non-male voices, then do it with original stories.

Why?

Quoted from PKCardinal Why?

It's a real curmudgeon, mate.

You see - "woke" is bad because it focuses on identity rather than quality or merit.

BUT.....

An otherwise qualified black man can't play Captain America because he has the wrong identity - and that is okay.

Now let's do cancel culture.

If you want to get rid of racist Asian stereotypes in a Dr. Suess book - that is cancel culture.

If you want people to boycott the NFL because players kneeled during the National Anthem - that is patriotism.

Seems simple

Quoted from eldave1 It's a real curmudgeon, mate. You see - "woke" is bad because it focuses on identity rather than quality or merit. BUT..... An otherwise qualified black man can't play Captain America because he has the wrong identity - and that is okay. Now let's do cancel culture. If you want to get rid of racist Asian stereotypes in a Dr. Suess book - that is cancel culture. If you want people to boycott the NFL because players kneeled during the National Anthem - that is patriotism. Seems simple

Yep. Cancel culture is just fine, as long as they're the ones doing the canceling. Once other people get that power... oh, hell no.

(Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone concerned about wokeness and cancel culture. There are legitimate concerns. But, it applies to most pushing the issue the hardest.)

I've got no problem with a black man playing a typically white role. I think Idris Elba would be a great James Bond. :)

Quoted from PKCardinal Why?

Have you ever taken it upon yourself to re-write a classic screenplay where your ONLY purpose was to change the gender or race of the main characters? I doubt it! and I doubt anyone here has because that would be insane.

Should we have an all female version of Die Hard?

Hey, how about a all-trans version of Pulp Fiction?

I mean, why stop at superheroes? Why not really go for it? An all white version of ROOTS. LMAO

Stealing traditionally white or male characters, with the soul objective being to retrofitting them with your favored minority, is something that is utterly foreign to me as a writer.

This is why it feels like these projects are more about subjecting the audience to something, rather than writing something to share with the audience. They have no desire to share with an audience, whom they loathe.

Perhaps, we just disagree. That's fine. I'm prickly. But I will say, I'm hardly alone. YouTube is FILLED with people repeating these same or similar complaints in everything from flipping NASCAR! to the NBA, to the Oscars, to Late Night to SNL.

Remember when SNL used to be funny? Remember when Late Night was funny? Remember when the Oscars mattered? Remember when people loved the NBA? Remember when the movies were good?

Ugh, this is all so depressing.

Quoted from Zack I've got no problem with a black man playing a typically white role. I think Idris Elba would be a great James Bond. :)

I wouldn't either, as long as he actually fits the role which I think he would. Hilariously, the writer did not think so.

Quoted Text But Anthony Hororwitz, who authored 14 Bond novels, felt differently about the potential casting and described the actor (Elba) as “too street” for the role.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1373358/idris-elba-news-james-bond-007-paul-mccartney-interview-the-beatles-bbc-music-film-uk-spt

It's when they embark on a trans Bond that the fireworks really begin.

Quoted from Robert Timsah Have you ever taken it upon yourself to re-write a classic screenplay where your ONLY purpose was to change the gender or race of the main characters? I doubt it! and I doubt anyone here has because that would be insane. Should we have an all female version of Die Hard? Hey, how about a all-trans version of Pulp Fiction? I mean, why stop at superheroes? Why not really go for it? An all white version of ROOTS. LMAO Stealing traditionally white or male characters, with the soul objective being to retrofitting them with your favored minority, is something that is utterly foreign to me as a writer. This is why it feels like these projects are more about subjecting the audience to something, rather than writing something to share with the audience. They have no desire to share with an audience, whom they loathe. Perhaps, we just disagree. That's fine. I'm prickly. But I will say, I'm hardly alone. YouTube is FILLED with people repeating these same or similar complaints in everything from flipping NASCAR! to the NBA, to the Oscars, to Late Night to SNL. Remember when SNL used to be funny? Remember when Late Night was funny? Remember when the Oscars mattered? Remember when people loved the NBA? Remember when the movies were good? Ugh, this is all so depressing.

Rewriting traditional/classic characters in new and exciting ways would absolutely fire me up as a writer. How many times has Alice in Wonderland been re-imagined? Romeo and Juliet. Hell, look at the marvel that is Hamilton. What a fantastic piece of art that is.

I thought the idea of an all-female Ghostbusters was genius. Turns out the execution was horrible. But, when I first heard the idea, I nearly jumped out of my chair.

Of course, I'm not sure why we're suddenly talking about re-writing classic versions of stuff. We started off talking about superhero movies. Hardly Roots.

So... back to comic book movies...

I see absolutely no reason to use the word "stealing" when talking about casting a black Captain America.

Who is Marvel stealing from?

Quoted from Robert Timsah I wouldn't either, as long as he actually fits the role which I think he would. Hilariously, the writer did not think so. https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1373358/idris-elba-news-james-bond-007-paul-mccartney-interview-the-beatles-bbc-music-film-uk-spt It's when they embark on a trans Bond that the fireworks really begin.

Too street? Idris Elba? Uh, ok. That shows you can't always trust the writer to make a good casting decision.

Quoted from eldave1 It's a real curmudgeon, mate. You see - "woke" is bad because it focuses on identity rather than quality or merit. BUT..... An otherwise qualified black man can't play Captain America because he has the wrong identity - and that is okay. Now let's do cancel culture. If you want to get rid of racist Asian stereotypes in a Dr. Suess book - that is cancel culture. If you want people to boycott the NFL because players kneeled during the National Anthem - that is patriotism. Seems simple

Two things.

I am talking about story and films, not boycotting the NFL. Players are free to kneel, the NFL is free to show it, and the fans are free to tune out.  

If tuning out is cancel culture? Then I guess they put a quarter in their ass and played themselves.

I have no problem if a black man is genuinely cast as Captain America, UNLESS, it's just a vehicle to tell white people how shitty they are and to push an agenda. That's where the awfulness creeps in. I'm not going to pretend to like it.

They could just make good films, again! Which is where all of this should come back to. They seem (Hollywood) so hellbent on pushing these agenda vehicles with the purpose to divide us rather than make great films again. It's all so strange.

Quoted from PKCardinal Rewriting traditional/classic characters in new and exciting ways would absolutely fire me up as a writer. How many times has Alice in Wonderland been re-imagined? Romeo and Juliet. Hell, look at the marvel that is Hamilton. What a fantastic piece of art that is. I thought the idea of an all-female Ghostbusters was genius. Turns out the execution was horrible. But, when I first heard the idea, I nearly jumped out of my chair. Of course, I'm not sure why we're suddenly talking about re-writing classic versions of stuff. We started off talking about superhero movies. Hardly Roots. So... back to comic book movies... I see absolutely no reason to use the word "stealing" when talking about casting a black Captain America. Who is Marvel stealing from?

It's all about motive, I suppose. What is their motive in changing the gender/race? If you start there you get at the crux of the issue.

You're right, a female Ghostbusters COULD be good but then we run into a new problem - the very people who come up with these gender-replacement concepts, can't write good story for shit.

In the liberal's mind they're already perfect and everybody else (Society) just has to get up to their level. With this level of arrogance and lack of humility, well, it's on full display in most films today.

If Woke doesn't kill it, the emotionally stilted liberalism, will. The video Andrew posted, what seems like eons ago, talked about this quite well imo.

Okay, I'm tired of talking about this. It's depressing.

SNL's Writers' Room (Short, Comedy, Coming Soon lol)

Saturday Night Live writers work on an upcoming skit, only to be sabotaged by a writer within the group who keeps trying to make it actually funny.

Quoted from Robert Timsah In the liberal's mind they're already perfect and everybody else (Society) just has to get up to their level. With this level of arrogance and lack of humility, well, it's on full display in most films today.

Whenever I spend time in North Carolina (we have family there), I always run into the saying... "They think they're better than us." "They" is whoever they're talking about. Could be neighbors. Restaurant workers, I've seen it used on a bunch of different people.

It always cracks me up. Because, what's left unsaid is the second part... "But they're not. We're better than them."

And, that's why I always regret getting sucked into these threads. As you say... it's just so depressing. So, I too, am out.

Back to writing some fun scripts. :)

Quoted from PKCardinal Whenever I spend time in North Carolina (we have family there), I always run into the saying... "They think they're better than us." "They" is whoever they're talking about. Could be neighbors. Restaurant workers, I've seen it used on a bunch of different people. It always cracks me up. Because, what's left unsaid is the second part... "But they're not. We're better than them." And, that's why I always regret getting sucked into these threads. As you say... it's just so depressing. So, I too, am out. Back to writing some fun scripts. :)

Absolutely.

Quoted from Robert Timsah Two things. I am talking about story and films, not boycotting the NFL. Players are free to kneel, the NFL is free to show it, and the fans are free to tune out.   If tuning out is cancel culture? Then I guess they put a quarter in their ass and played themselves. I have no problem if a black man is genuinely cast as Captain America, UNLESS, it's just a vehicle to tell white people how shitty they are and to push an agenda. That's where the awfulness creeps in. I'm not going to pretend to like it. They could just make good films, again! Which is where all of this should come back to. They seem (Hollywood) so hellbent on pushing these agenda vehicles with the purpose to divide us rather than make great films again. It's all so strange.

I wouldn’t say, and I could be wrong, that Hollywood is trying to divide us. Leave that shit to the politicians - they’re experts at it. Hollywood is driven by money. How many times have we seen the old trope of a movie about a producer funding a film, but the catch is he wants his lover in the starring role?

I think it’s something along those lines. And it’s driven by money. But still, if it makes money and everyone gets rich, that’s great. You’ll see more. If not, it’ll dry up right quick.

Cancel culture and work are buzz words. They’re being bandied about and handed out like candy, and people are jumping on the bandwagon. You would hear barely a peep about this nonsense if it weren’t for Twitter and YouTube. You know, because that’s where a lot of people go to get their information from or to watch videos posted by someone trying to get enough followers so they can start charging for their content. Divisive means views. Views mean money. Money means more money, and round and round she goes.

Basically, someone is looking to appease someone. And they’ll do it gladly if it means their brand stays relevant and profitable.

Land O’Lakes and Uncle Bens and Aunt Jemima? Knee jerk reactions to save the brand in this brave new world. If you offend people, it means less money. That’s bad. And it’s disguised as caring and sympathetic to the cause. That’s, of course, if black people were really that offended by Aunt Jemima in the first place.

So, Hollywood? Money. Uncle Bens? Money.

Politicians? Votes. Sorry, I mean donations. Sorry again... Money.

Do you trust the side that apologizes often or the side that never apologizes?

Quoted from Rob Do you trust the side that apologizes often or the side that never apologizes?

Both sound bad to me.

Do you trust the side which renames or the side that ends renaming?

Quoted from Rob Do you trust the side which renames or the side that ends renaming?

I don’t trust anyone. Not completely.

The apologist is cloying; the non-apologist is deadly. It's important to keep that perspective when fretting over woke culture.

I’m not really fretting. I try and keep it in some sort of perspective that makes sense to me. That said, cloying is better than deadly, if that’s how you want to view it, so there’s that.

At the end of the day, I have only myself and my family to be responsible for. I have views and opinions and maybe if there was a way to make money from them, I would. Still, I wouldn’t expect anyone to get up in arms over what I think, nor would I want or expect them to.

As a writer, I have an outlet. So do all of us. I write because it feels good. I want people to be entertained by what I write. I don’t necessarily want to divide or polarize with that.

Maybe foolishly, I’ve always held to the belief that everything will work itself out.

Quoted from Robert Timsah Two things. I am talking about story and films, not boycotting the NFL. Players are free to kneel, the NFL is free to show it, and the fans are free to tune out.   If tuning out is cancel culture? Then I guess they put a quarter in their ass and played themselves. I have no problem if a black man is genuinely cast as Captain America, UNLESS, it's just a vehicle to tell white people how shitty they are and to push an agenda. That's where the awfulness creeps in. I'm not going to pretend to like it. They could just make good films, again! Which is where all of this should come back to. They seem (Hollywood) so hellbent on pushing these agenda vehicles with the purpose to divide us rather than make great films again. It's all so strange.

The NFL example and the Movie example are completely analogous.  Take this statement:

Players are free to kneel, the NFL is free to show it, and the fans are free to tune out.  

And replace it with - Movie producers are free to make woke movies, theaters are free to show them and the fans are free to tune out.  

The they could make good films again is such nonsense. They make tons of good films - I know you don't need a list. You know they are there. And yes - they make some woke crap. In your words - you have a right to tune out the woke crap.  For me, if I have to suffer through a few bad films to get confederate flags taken down - it's a decent trade-off. In neither case is it the armageddon click-baiting junkies like this Youtube gal would have you believe it is.

Whether it is the Ben Shapiro's on the right or the Olberman's on the left - their only desire is to make a whole lot of effing money off riling up the tribes.  

Quoted from eldave1 Movie producers are free to make woke movies, theaters are free to show them and the fans are free to tune out.

Which is kind of what the OP was about. People are tuning out. The other point made in the video was not that people tune out because of wokeness, but rather they are not doing it the right way. They are shoehorning in these ideas where they feel forced. People, women and men both,  love to watch a female hero. Then why did Black Christmas and Ghostbusters fail? Because they didn't EARN it. Which is why my first post in this thread mentioned, Clarice Starling, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and QT's amazing The Bride. They earned our "worship". They struggled and rose to the challenges. Same reason we love Rocky. In a Disney movie, Rocky would have been born a prince and his skills would already be there, they would just need to be honed. Third point in the OP was that it's fine to be a feminist. Nothing wrong with it at all. It's to be preferred, IMO, but that doesn't mean women need to push men down at any given opportunity. That just makes you a crummy human, which is not desired by anyone.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Which is kind of what the OP was about. People are tuning out. The other point made in the video was not that people tune out because of wokeness, but rather they are not doing it the right way. They are shoehorning in these ideas where they feel forced. People, women and men both,  love to watch a female hero. Then why did Black Christmas and Ghostbusters fail? Because they didn't EARN it. Which is why my first post in this thread mentioned, Clarice Starling, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and QT's amazing The Bride. They earned our "worship". They struggled and rose to the challenges. Same reason we love Rocky. In a Disney movie, Rocky would have been born a prince and his skills would already be there, they would just need to be honed. Third point in the OP was that it's fine to be a feminist. Nothing wrong with it at all. It's to be preferred, IMO, but that doesn't mean women need to push men down at any given opportunity. That just makes you a crummy human, which is not desired by anyone.

First and foremost - people are not tuning out. Total theater Box Office has been on a steady rise for decades. Add to that the emergence of Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc. etc. - people are watching more Hollywood content than at any other time in history. Theaters went in the tank due to Covid - not because of some displeasure with film-making. Viewership just shifted in medium used - not in total viewership. So the OP's starting premise is wrong - people are not tuning out.

AND - if they were (they're not) then it would be a sefl-correcting problem. As people tune out - those who produce films would adjust to make sure they continue to make $$$$$$.

And why do you believe the OP was not talking about wokeism???? The video is entitled: Everything wrong with Woke Culture (and the impact on feminism

Couldn't have Black Christmas and Ghostbusters failed simply because they were crap movies. Using GHostbusters as an example - it was unoriginal (we already had seen these gags) and poorly executed. AND - the thing was produced in 2016 (probably written a year or two before that) - when did the scourge of wokeness, or forced characters, or whatever term one uses to describe what destroyed the industry start?  Because if it was 2016 - there's a lot of explaining to do for the Box Office records experienced in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020.

Yeah - there are cringe-worthy woke moments in films - I don't dispute that. They will come and go. I dispute the sky is falling calminity the OP sells in h er Youtube clip.   AND - I get kind of turned off to things that are labeled like: EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH WOKE CULTURE - when they really mean - why did this movie suck.

You sound angry, Dave.

I still believe what I believe. You are free to believe what you believe. For me personally, I started to tune out when CGI became a major part of film and re-boots became the norm.

Quoted from Grandma Bear You sound angry, Dave. I still believe what I believe. You are free to believe what you believe. For me personally, I started to tune out when CGI became a major part of film and re-boots became the norm.

Sorry if it came across that way. Certainly not angry at you. Although I will admit that videos like the one presented here do irk me :)

I agree that the over-reliance on CGI as a substitute for story and the constant reboots suck. At least for me personally. But... they are making ga-billions doing it. So I got to assume that it doesn't suck for their target market.

People are watching it, for the same reason people drink diet soda. They gotta drink (or watch) something! haha.

I go over to YouTube, and I see throngs of people still watching and paying for these movies but hating them. It isn't just me. I thought it might be. I feel bad for people younger than me, desperately searching for the great films we had growing up - instead, they get another shitty Star Wars.

It's kind of the same with all entertainment - sports, films, have turned into a hostage situation. LOL - You can be entertained if you can endure our "good speak" with in it. LOL

The industry has access to the largest audience in world history via the streaming platforms. China has 1.8 billion people to our 328 million. (We spent 3.5 trillion on Covid, they spent 4.5 billion, but that's a different issue lol) and that's where I would imagine the surge in new viewers could be coming from. Those poor souls.

Ironically, I've been watching more Asian stuff to find some semblance of a story LOL

Pretty soon China going to invade if we don't stop sending our shit films over there haha

Quoted from Grandma Bear Which is kind of what the OP was about. People are tuning out. The other point made in the video was not that people tune out because of wokeness, but rather they are not doing it the right way. They are shoehorning in these ideas where they feel forced. People, women and men both,  love to watch a female hero. Then why did Black Christmas and Ghostbusters fail? Because they didn't EARN it. Which is why my first post in this thread mentioned, Clarice Starling, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and QT's amazing The Bride. They earned our "worship". They struggled and rose to the challenges. Same reason we love Rocky. In a Disney movie, Rocky would have been born a prince and his skills would already be there, they would just need to be honed. Third point in the OP was that it's fine to be a feminist. Nothing wrong with it at all. It's to be preferred, IMO, but that doesn't mean women need to push men down at any given opportunity. That just makes you a crummy human, which is not desired by anyone.

Concur!  ;D

Quoted from Rob Do you trust the side which renames or the side that ends renaming?

Sorry, Steve. My posts earlier were not directed at you in particular. They were just some thoughts I was posting in general. I realize now that it looks like I was responding to your earlier comments, but I was just spitballing in general. But thank you for commenting.

Wow, this one moved on a bit since last logging in.

There appears to be some cross purposes on what "woke" actually is, how it impacts film, how it has proliferated, what disagreeing with it means, and what difference is it actually making.

So this is my take.

There seems a reasonably broad agreement that "woke-ism" is a shit show. It has many names, including "radical leftism", "far left", and so on. It's a slippery term, and is used interchangeably with those just mentioned, but is used by liberals to describe a strain of illiberal, ideological dogma that rejects evidence-based approaches, free speech and the belief we should treat one another as individuals.

The original term has been co-opted by 'both sides', but it was always a bit wanky and vague: to be alert to racial and social injustice. Or, in other words, to be awake to the underlying causes of what perpetuates unfairness. So far, so bland. Because it's essentially meaningless to be alert unless you're specifying what the causes are, and in turn, what you're alert to.

It was always an empty vessel, into which ideas such as intersectionality and positionality, and critical race theory have placed roots. Over the years, this has adapted to include subsequent waves of feminism (which reject second wave feminism, the liberal version the vast majority of people support), trans activism, postcolonial theory, fat studies, far left economics, and a general grievance politics that places straight, white men at the top of the evil tree.

The first co-opting of this term in the recent past came from BLM, and in response to this, conservatives have adopted it and used it as a tool to make their own political points.

So when I am talking woke, I am talking about ideas that place lived experience > evidence, cancel culture > free speech, cultural appropriation > freedom, idelological dogma > intelligence.

Let's look at some examples of woke-ism:

Cultural appropriation: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/portland-burrito-cart-closes-after-owners-are-accused-of-cultural-appropriation_n_5926ef7ee4b062f96a348181?ri18n=true

This is, frankly, absurd.

Cancel culture: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

We all know it's happening. Cancel culture isn't just ensuring an individual never works again. It's about throttling ideas outside the ideological dogma from gaining oxygen, and forcing a set of ideas as unchallengable to the masses, with any disagreement or questioning seen as unequivocal evidence of multiple -isms.

This letter includes names such as, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and Garry Kasparov. Hardly conservative firebrands.

Safe spaces, segregation, race essentialsm: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-columbia-university-graduation-based-race-identity-1576567

This is backward, ugly and it's not conservative reaction to reject this.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/

When ideas successfully form in people's minds, they're able to unlock, justify and embolden implicitly held prejudices. Lori Lightfoot clearly has prejudice in heart. This action isn't helping anyone. It's about retribution. It's ugly.

These are just some examples of the illiberal climate. I could be here all day.

But how does this impact film?

Film doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's operating in a society preaching tolerance whilst practicing intolerance, evangelising inclusion whilst forcing exclusion and painting all criticism of woke ideas as evidence of its thesis.

It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive to unity, tolerance and building a fairer world for all.

To make films highlighting racial or gender disparities isn't woke. That's liberalism. That's part of what film is about. The reality is films in the recent past, such as "Brokeback Mountain" or "Boyz n The Hood" wouldn't be made in the current day. They'd be beholden to strict woke dogma about how a gay man or black man should be, how their place in society is framed exclusively in relation to white supremacy and the characters would be cookie cutters capable only of serving the politics, rather than a unique creation inhabiting a complex world.

We want films exploring the broad array of cultures, peoples, and ideas, where the intention isn't pushing bullet points of 'representation', or serving political goals, but broadening the canvas of all of our lives.

To make films preaching a singular message (we live in a patriarchal white supremacy) where refusal to acknowledge this truth (a "truth" not supported by facts or evident beyond the ideological dogma) is evidence we live in a patriarchal white supremacy is unsurprisingly rejected by most. Inherent in this is a deep dislike of the everyday person, and contempt for their intellect and morals. There's a belief of moral and intellectual superiority in preaching in woke films, or planted woke messages embedded. The subtext is: we have all the answers, no debate required, now shut up and take the medicine.

The most frustrating element of woke-ism is how it has branded all attempts to fight racism (an essential cause) as 'woke', and everything else to be racist.

So, naturally, some are reluctant to speak against woke-ism, because to do so is to be racist. Conservatives have had much more courage in rejecting this asinine framing, and liberals have been too craven to speak up.

An embodiment of this insanity is Kendi's absurd anti-racism doctrine, where he eliminates 'not racist' as an option, leaving us with two options: racist and anti-racist. If people don't read the book (you really should), they're accessing the surface language, and think, sure, why wouldn't I be antiracist, while never understanding what anti-racism actually embodies. The most egregious example would be Kendi's implementation of an unelected anti-racism body, which would sign off on all government policy to ensure compliance with doctrine. Read the book if you haven't.

Books such as "How to be an antiracist" and "White Fragility" have been spectacularly successful in spreading the woke evangel, as have news outlets like The New York Times and CNN, which were sadly broken during the Trump years. Another organ for getting these simplistic, destructive ideas across is Hollywood.

And it is rootiong pernicious bullshit like what the video highlights:

- Women can only be strong by standing in opposition to men
- Racism can only be eradicated by "diversity guidelines"
- Trans rights can only be granted by eliminating science
- Disabled people can only be freed if abled bodied people don't play disabled roles
- Gay men and lesbians can only be liberated if straight people are struck off the list to play gay or lesbian roles

And on and on. All of it moving away from what film is about: entertaining people, telling compelling stories and giving us new worlds to explore.

Society is as fractured as at any point in living memory, and one of the primary arteries for this is the vacuum created by 9/11, Iraq, the GFC, where we have had our faith in an overarching narrative fractured. It has allowed false prophets with their nasty little ideas to divide people, and this comes from left and right. As a society, we have no problems calling this out on the right, but there's always been a reluctance to do so on the left, because of the false notion all left wing ideas are cuddly and well-meaning.

We need to get back to evaluating ideas, and not the people pushing them, desperately scouring for motives.

So, why is it Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated as noble, well-intentioned and decent, whereas an equivalent like Marco Rubio is treated as deceptive, ill-motivated and morally corrupt? The reason is people have allowed themselves to see a the messenger > message.

It's not that I even support either of the above; it's just so blatantly obvious that some would reject ideas they claim to support if another messenger took them on.

In a liberal democracy, we should listen to a wide array of ideas, seek to understand those ideas (as opposed to framing them conveniently for debate) and desire to bring everyone in a big tent together, where we reject identity bona fides in favour of embracing indivuduality.

I could go on much longer, but won't. These are just some of the thoughts I wanted to get out. There are more I'll wish I added when they pop up later, but eventually these ideas will start to formulate on my upcmomng podcast.

This isn't new, but if you haven't seen it, there's little out there that better sums up what's going on.

As for criticisms of Jordan Peterson.

This is well known now, but if you haven't watched this, please do.

It serves as the perfect articulation of when people try and distort him, and fall flat on their face.

Jordan Peterson is one of the most misinterpreted figures in populart culture today. Certain sections of the left hate him because they can't debate him, and he has a backbone. Incapable of countering his points, they instead try and mock him and / or demonise him. This video is that attempt shown up for what it is.

It's encouraging to see young kids in their late teens and early 20s coming into contact with him for the first time, because it's a breath of fresh air with all of the stifling of freedom of thought placed on them.

Thanks for sharing, Andrew! Keep'em coming. :)

Quoted from Andrew Wow, this one moved on a bit since last logging in. There appears to be some cross purposes on what "woke" actually is, how it impacts film, how it has proliferated, what disagreeing with it means, and what difference is it actually making. So this is my take. There seems a reasonably broad agreement that "woke-ism" is a shit show. It has many names, including "radical leftism", "far left", and so on. It's a slippery term, and is used interchangeably with those just mentioned, but is used by liberals to describe a strain of illiberal, ideological dogma that rejects evidence-based approaches, free speech and the belief we should treat one another as individuals. The original term has been co-opted by 'both sides', but it was always a bit wanky and vague: to be alert to racial and social injustice. Or, in other words, to be awake to the underlying causes of what perpetuates unfairness. So far, so bland. Because it's essentially meaningless to be alert unless you're specifying what the causes are, and in turn, what you're alert to. It was always an empty vessel, into which ideas such as intersectionality and positionality, and critical race theory have placed roots. Over the years, this has adapted to include subsequent waves of feminism (which reject second wave feminism, the liberal version the vast majority of people support), trans activism, postcolonial theory, fat studies, far left economics, and a general grievance politics that places straight, white men at the top of the evil tree. The first co-opting of this term in the recent past came from BLM, and in response to this, conservatives have adopted it and used it as a tool to make their own political points. So when I am talking woke, I am talking about ideas that place lived experience > evidence, cancel culture > free speech, cultural appropriation > freedom, idelological dogma > intelligence. Let's look at some examples of woke-ism: Cultural appropriation: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/portland-burrito-cart-closes-after-owners-are-accused-of-cultural-appropriation_n_5926ef7ee4b062f96a348181?ri18n=true This is, frankly, absurd. Cancel culture: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ We all know it's happening. Cancel culture isn't just ensuring an individual never works again. It's about throttling ideas outside the ideological dogma from gaining oxygen, and forcing a set of ideas as unchallengable to the masses, with any disagreement or questioning seen as unequivocal evidence of multiple -isms. This letter includes names such as, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and Garry Kasparov. Hardly conservative firebrands. Safe spaces, segregation, race essentialsm: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-columbia-university-graduation-based-race-identity-1576567 This is backward, ugly and it's not conservative reaction to reject this. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/20/chicago-mayor-lori-lightfoot-journalists-interviews/5192857001/ When ideas successfully form in people's minds, they're able to unlock, justify and embolden implicitly held prejudices. Lori Lightfoot clearly has prejudice in heart. This action isn't helping anyone. It's about retribution. It's ugly. These are just some examples of the illiberal climate. I could be here all day. But how does this impact film? Film doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's operating in a society preaching tolerance whilst practicing intolerance, evangelising inclusion whilst forcing exclusion and painting all criticism of woke ideas as evidence of its thesis. It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive to unity, tolerance and building a fairer world for all. To make films highlighting racial or gender disparities isn't woke. That's liberalism. That's part of what film is about. The reality is films in the recent past, such as "Brokeback Mountain" or "Boyz n The Hood" wouldn't be made in the current day. They'd be beholden to strict woke dogma about how a gay man or black man should be, how their place in society is framed exclusively in relation to white supremacy and the characters would be cookie cutters capable only of serving the politics, rather than a unique creation inhabiting a complex world. We want films exploring the broad array of cultures, peoples, and ideas, where the intention isn't pushing bullet points of 'representation', or serving political goals, but broadening the canvas of all of our lives. To make films preaching a singular message (we live in a patriarchal white supremacy) where refusal to acknowledge this truth (a "truth" not supported by facts or evident beyond the ideological dogma) is evidence we live in a patriarchal white supremacy is unsurprisingly rejected by most. Inherent in this is a deep dislike of the everyday person, and contempt for their intellect and morals. There's a belief of moral and intellectual superiority in preaching in woke films, or planted woke messages embedded. The subtext is: we have all the answers, no debate required, now shut up and take the medicine. The most frustrating element of woke-ism is how it has branded all attempts to fight racism (an essential cause) as 'woke', and everything else to be racist. So, naturally, some are reluctant to speak against woke-ism, because to do so is to be racist. Conservatives have had much more courage in rejecting this asinine framing, and liberals have been too craven to speak up. An embodiment of this insanity is Kendi's absurd anti-racism doctrine, where he eliminates 'not racist' as an option, leaving us with two options: racist and anti-racist. If people don't read the book (you really should), they're accessing the surface language, and think, sure, why wouldn't I be antiracist, while never understanding what anti-racism actually embodies. The most egregious example would be Kendi's implementation of an unelected anti-racism body, which would sign off on all government policy to ensure compliance with doctrine. Read the book if you haven't. Books such as "How to be an antiracist" and "White Fragility" have been spectacularly successful in spreading the woke evangel, as have news outlets like The New York Times and CNN, which were sadly broken during the Trump years. Another organ for getting these simplistic, destructive ideas across is Hollywood. And it is rootiong pernicious bullshit like what the video highlights: - Women can only be strong by standing in opposition to men - Racism can only be eradicated by "diversity guidelines" - Trans rights can only be granted by eliminating science - Disabled people can only be freed if abled bodied people don't play disabled roles - Gay men and lesbians can only be liberated if straight people are struck off the list to play gay or lesbian roles And on and on. All of it moving away from what film is about: entertaining people, telling compelling stories and giving us new worlds to explore. Society is as fractured as at any point in living memory, and one of the primary arteries for this is the vacuum created by 9/11, Iraq, the GFC, where we have had our faith in an overarching narrative fractured. It has allowed false prophets with their nasty little ideas to divide people, and this comes from left and right. As a society, we have no problems calling this out on the right, but there's always been a reluctance to do so on the left, because of the false notion all left wing ideas are cuddly and well-meaning. We need to get back to evaluating ideas, and not the people pushing them, desperately scouring for motives. So, why is it Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated as noble, well-intentioned and decent, whereas an equivalent like Marco Rubio is treated as deceptive, ill-motivated and morally corrupt? The reason is people have allowed themselves to see a the messenger > message. It's not that I even support either of the above; it's just so blatantly obvious that some would reject ideas they claim to support if another messenger took them on. In a liberal democracy, we should listen to a wide array of ideas, seek to understand those ideas (as opposed to framing them conveniently for debate) and desire to bring everyone in a big tent together, where we reject identity bona fides in favour of embracing indivuduality. I could go on much longer, but won't. These are just some of the thoughts I wanted to get out. There are more I'll wish I added when they pop up later, but eventually these ideas will start to formulate on my upcmomng podcast.

Nazi!

Quoted from Andrew As for criticisms of Jordan Peterson. This is well known now, but if you haven't watched this, please do. It serves as the perfect articulation of when people try and distort him, and fall flat on their face. Jordan Peterson is one of the most misinterpreted figures in populart culture today. Certain sections of the left hate him because they can't debate him, and he has a backbone. Incapable of countering his points, they instead try and mock him and / or demonise him. This video is that attempt shown up for what it is. It's encouraging to see young kids in their late teens and early 20s coming into contact with him for the first time, because it's a breath of fresh air with all of the stifling of freedom of thought placed on them.

I have always found him intelligent - yet flawed. I believe he is an incomplete thinker.

As an example, the pay gap between men and women is primarily a result of gender.  

On a global basis, it is idiotic to argue that women are not suppressed primarily as a result of their gender.

As we sit today, that is far less the case in western/modern culture. When looking at differences in pay outcomes, Peterson injects nonsense like women make less because they are more agreeable. Yet there is zero evidence that agreeability empirically is an economic or business disadvantage.  There may be evidence that men view it as such. That is a far different thing.

Is it really all that complicated as Peterson would have you believe?

It ain't.

In the US example, women could even vote until 1920, As late as 1950, the workforce only consisted of 29% female and it wasn't until 2010 that they hit the 50% threshold. During that period of time, hiring and promotion considerations included the risk of losing women due to pregnancy/chid rearing.  Workplace social environments (golf clubs. men's clubs, the drink after work) often excluded women. It also included men's unscientific pre-conceptions of traits that constituted leadership.

Of course, that is changing. Women now hold around 39% of manager positions (although only 29% of executive-level and 2% of CEOs).  Looks low in abstract, but go back 30 years and it was nearly zero. Now here's the question - did Women become less agreeable over that time???? No evidence for that.

The more likely answer is that, over time, more and more women were historically into the workforce, they became managers and as they increased their ranks in management, horseshit and dated concepts like women are more agreeable and that is why they get paid less will fall to the wayside.

i.e., Women are not paid less than men because they have some inherent agreeability gene. Women are paid less than men because of long-term systemic gender bias that is not course corrected in a blink.  

Certainly, Peterson makes some valid points on wage gaps (e.g., you can't make macro comparisons without considering the same exact occupation, level of experience, etc) in calculating what that gap is. However --- I believe he is idiotic in inserting a "women are more agreeable" causality for that gap" than the far more rational - we are where we are because of past systematic gender bias rather than current gender bias.

Which why I don't care for the Peterson's of the world - I know that they are smarter than that  - but smart doesn't generate clicks and sell books. Controversy does.

Quoted Text So, why is it Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated as noble, well-intentioned and decent, whereas an equivalent like Marco Rubio is treated as deceptive, ill-motivated and morally corrupt? The reason is people have allowed themselves to see a the messenger > message. It's not that I even support either of the above; it's just so blatantly obvious that some would reject ideas they claim to support if another messenger took them on.

???????????

AOC is treated as effing Satan by the many. This isn't a AOC - vs - Rubio thing. It is a tribe vs tribe thing.  Neither tribe having a noble intent.

And ask yourself what is more damaging - some people aligning with AOC's thinking, or half the country thinking the election was stolen?  

Quoted from eldave1 ??????????? AOC is treated as effing Satan by the many. This isn't a AOC - vs - Rubio thing. It is a tribe vs tribe thing.  Neither tribe having a noble intent. And ask yourself what is more damaging - some people aligning with AOC's thinking, or half the country thinking the election was stolen?

Have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is there’s a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent.

So the lens with which the ideas are treated through is filtered by the messenger, and not the message.  

They sure worried about those election audits out in Arizona, huh? And what about the 3-year Russia gate crap that turned out to be nonsense, all to derail Trump's presidency?

Multiple cities, states violated local election laws specifically and in the same manner in almost every battleground state.

Trump won almost EVERY bellwether county yet magically not only loses but loses every battleground.

Enjoy watching these forensic audits. The same people who told you Trump was a Russian agent, are the exact same entities telling you the Arizona audit is "a problem". You even have Perkins Coie down there.

I have little doubt that they utilized covid-19 in order to cheat and rig the election for Joe Biden but as always the hard part is proving it. Especially if the FBI is in on it.

People may say that's a conspiracy theory but the FBI was the ones who pushed the Russia gate b******* against Trump.

Then you have that truck driver talking about how he was driving ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Did the FBI investigate his claim? No. They harassed him. The lady's down in Georgia running the ballots after saying they had a water leak, were they ever investigated not that we know of. It went from a water leak, to a urinal, to earlier in the day. And that's what we call a cover story.

There are conspiracies. Epstein didn't kill himself. Aliens have probably been covered up for years. As we may be about to find out. As I like to say, my conspiracy theory is better than yours!

Quoted from eldave1 I have always found him intelligent - yet flawed. I believe he is an incomplete thinker. As an example, the pay gap between men and women is primarily a result of gender.   On a global basis, it is idiotic to argue that women are not suppressed primarily as a result of their gender. As we sit today, that is far less the case in western/modern culture. When looking at differences in pay outcomes, Peterson injects nonsense like women make less because they are more agreeable. Yet there is zero evidence that agreeability empirically is an economic or business disadvantage.  There may be evidence that men view it as such. That is a far different thing. Is it really all that complicated as Peterson would have you believe? It ain't. In the US example, women could even vote until 1920, As late as 1950, the workforce only consisted of 29% female and it wasn't until 2010 that they hit the 50% threshold. During that period of time, hiring and promotion considerations included the risk of losing women due to pregnancy/chid rearing.  Workplace social environments (golf clubs. men's clubs, the drink after work) often excluded women. It also included men's unscientific pre-conceptions of traits that constituted leadership. Of course, that is changing. Women now hold around 39% of manager positions (although only 29% of executive-level and 2% of CEOs).  Looks low in abstract, but go back 30 years and it was nearly zero. Now here's the question - did Women become less agreeable over that time???? No evidence for that. The more likely answer is that, over time, more and more women were historically into the workforce, they became managers and as they increased their ranks in management, horseshit and dated concepts like women are more agreeable and that is why they get paid less will fall to the wayside. i.e., Women are not paid less than men because they have some inherent agreeability gene. Women are paid less than men because of long-term systemic gender bias that is not course corrected in a blink.   Certainly, Peterson makes some valid points on wage gaps (e.g., you can't make macro comparisons without considering the same exact occupation, level of experience, etc) in calculating what that gap is. However --- I believe he is idiotic in inserting a "women are more agreeable" causality for that gap" than the far more rational - we are where we are because of past systematic gender bias rather than current gender bias. Which why I don't care for the Peterson's of the world - I know that they are smarter than that  - but smart doesn't generate clicks and sell books. Controversy does.

Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. It’s irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but it’s all good. Everyone sees something different, and that’s fine.

The reason I posted that clip wasn’t to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and it’s cringeworthy to watch.

Peterson’s position here is simple:

- There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as ‘men get paid more than women’ doesn’t factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc.

So if you’re not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, it’s a bogus statistic. That’s not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, it’s a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isn’t the issue. That’s a crude breakdown of his point.

Now if you’re comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and there’s a discrepancy, that’s a fair point of debate. Peterson’s point is the debate and statement doesn’t go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesn’t exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.

Quoted from Andrew Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is there’s a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent.

I couldn't agree more. Spot on, Dude. :)

Quoted from Robert Timsah They sure worried about those election audits out in Arizona, huh? And what about the 3-year Russia gate crap that turned out to be nonsense, all to derail Trump's presidency? Multiple cities, states violated local election laws specifically and in the same manner in almost every battleground state. Trump won almost EVERY bellwether county yet magically not only loses but loses every battleground. Enjoy watching these forensic audits. The same people who told you Trump was a Russian agent, are the exact same entities telling you the Arizona audit is "a problem". You even have Perkins Coie down there. I have little doubt that they utilized covid-19 in order to cheat and rig the election for Joe Biden but as always the hard part is proving it. Especially if the FBI is in on it. People may say that's a conspiracy theory but the FBI was the ones who pushed the Russia gate b******* against Trump. Then you have that truck driver talking about how he was driving ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Did the FBI investigate his claim? No. They harassed him. The lady's down in Georgia running the ballots after saying they had a water leak, were they ever investigated not that we know of. It went from a water leak, to a urinal, to earlier in the day. And that's what we call a cover story. There are conspiracies. Epstein didn't kill himself. Aliens have probably been covered up for years. As we may be about to find out. As I like to say, my conspiracy theory is better than yours!

I don’t personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election.

However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before.

The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear.

Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view.

Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.

Quoted from Andrew Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. It’s irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but it’s all good. Everyone sees something different, and that’s fine. The reason I posted that clip wasn’t to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and it’s cringeworthy to watch. Peterson’s position here is simple: - There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as ‘men get paid more than women’ doesn’t factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc. So if you’re not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, it’s a bogus statistic. That’s not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, it’s a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isn’t the issue. That’s a crude breakdown of his point. Now if you’re comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and there’s a discrepancy, that’s a fair point of debate. Peterson’s point is the debate and statement doesn’t go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesn’t exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.

Concur with this as well. Well said.  :)

Quoted from Zack Thanks for sharing, Andrew! Keep'em coming. :)

Will do :)

Quoted from Andrew I don’t personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election. However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before. The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear. Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view. Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.

Again, couldn't agree more! The hypocrisy of it all is the most frustrating part!  :-/

I'll share one. Think it's pretty relevant. :)

Quoted from Andrew Have to agree to disagree on this one. Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is there’s a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent. So the lens with which the ideas are treated through is filtered by the messenger, and not the message.

You're wrong as there is no single messenger.

On one hand, the largest cable company (FOX), largest local TV conglomerate (Sinclair) almost every AM radio station, a plethora of websites and internet news outlets are oftentimes the messenger and they vilify AOC and provide sainthood status to right-wing loons. Your "default" doesn't exist with these outlets.

Conversely, MSNBC, CNN a whole host of left-leaning websites saint AOC and others on the left and vilify even the most reasonable voices on the right.

i.e., There is no one messenger and there is no such entity as "the media".  And you must know that at some level, Andrew. You don't think it is an accident that we are so split down the middle do you???? We are split down the middle because the media forces on the left and the right both suck in terms of truth and both have significant influence and power. It's obvious isn't it?

Took me awhile to read through all the comments here. Sometimes it sucks to be a mod.  :D

Anyway, IMHO, media has become a scary thing. Doesn't really matter which side they lean to. In the days before the internet and social media, the media was more unbiased. People delivered the news without making faces or hyping anything. There were also fewer news outlets. With the internet came an explosion of new news sources. People could pick and chose which news they wanted. Enter social media and now everyone on this planet can chime in on said news. The waters get muddy and sometimes it's hard to know what's true and what's not. Everyone fighting for viewers and clicks. Not saying things were better in the old days because who knows if we were getting skewed news back then as well. All I know is that I trust absolutely no one these days. At least not as far as information goes.

Now I'm going to catch up on the Jan Project thread. Hopefully it's not as long as this one or it's going to take me all evening to respond.  ;D

Quoted from Andrew Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. It’s irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but it’s all good. Everyone sees something different, and that’s fine. The reason I posted that clip wasn’t to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and it’s cringeworthy to watch. Peterson’s position here is simple: - There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as ‘men get paid more than women’ doesn’t factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc. So if you’re not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, it’s a bogus statistic. That’s not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, it’s a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isn’t the issue. That’s a crude breakdown of his point. Now if you’re comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and there’s a discrepancy, that’s a fair point of debate. Peterson’s point is the debate and statement doesn’t go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesn’t exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.

Like we watched two different videos.

Yes - the oft-quoted 77% pay gap is a horribly inaccurate number and anyone is right in pointing that out.  At the same time, the fact is that there is a pay gap even when all these variables are accounted for.

Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this:

Quoted Text " women’s tendency for neuroticism – their likelihood to experience stress, depression and unpredictability – and their high level of agreeableness, to be cooperative and compassionate.

Without scientific proof. Pure conjecture and smack dab against common sense to boot. How would Peterson explain women's progress if indeed these things were true? We have made strides every decade and we are headed toward parity. When we reach parity - will his argument be - well, I guess that women no longer have a tendency towards neuroticism of that women must have become less agreeable???? PS - he won't of course as he believes these traits are innate. Which again, undermines his own theory on causality - if they are innate - how does one explain the progress that has been made?

BTW - you do know that in the very recent past - non-agreeable were more likely to be categorized as bitch and shrill by their male peers than they were to be complimented for their strong leadership - dude, I lived that for decades.

So, still, a fail for me for this guy. Because as I said before - I believe he is smarter than that.

Here is where I would respect Peterson. If he said:

- The actual pay gap is XX% when controlled for blah, blah -

Where I lose respect for him is when he inserts a totally unsubstantiated thesis for the gap.

Because he knows better. He doesn't say that because it won't yield clicks on his video and he won't sell books.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Took me awhile to read through all the comments here. Sometimes it sucks to be a mod.  :D Anyway, IMHO, media has become a scary thing. Doesn't really matter which side they lean to. In the days before the internet and social media, the media was more unbiased. People delivered the news without making faces or hyping anything. There were also fewer news outlets. With the internet came an explosion of new news sources. People could pick and chose which news they wanted. Enter social media and now everyone on this planet can chime in on said news. The waters get muddy and sometimes it's hard to know what's true and what's not. Everyone fighting for viewers and clicks. Not saying things were better in the old days because who knows if we were getting skewed news back then as well. All I know is that I trust absolutely no one these days. At least not as far as information goes. Now I'm going to catch up on the Jan Project thread. Hopefully it's not as long as this one or it's going to take me all evening to respond.  ;D

Concur

Quoted from eldave1 You're wrong as there is no single messenger. On one hand, the largest cable company (FOX), largest local TV conglomerate (Sinclair) almost every AM radio station, a plethora of websites and internet news outlets are oftentimes the messenger and they vilify AOC and provide sainthood status to right-wing loons. Your "default" doesn't exist with these outlets. Conversely, MSNBC, CNN a whole host of left-leaning websites saint AOC and others on the left and vilify even the most reasonable voices on the right. i.e., There is no one messenger and there is no such entity as "the media".  And you must know that at some level, Andrew. You don't think it is an accident that we are so split down the middle do you???? We are split down the middle because the media forces on the left and the right both suck in terms of truth and both have significant influence and power. It's obvious isn't it?

It starts to become sticky when we enter the territory of, “you’re wrong”.

You’re entitled to disagree, but that sounds a little angry.

I do think you’re being disagreeable on this one. So it’s an easy agree to disagree.

Quoted from eldave1 Like we watched two different videos. Yes - the oft-quoted 77% pay gap is a horribly inaccurate number and anyone is right in pointing that out.  At the same time, the fact is that there is a pay gap even when all these variables are accounted for. Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this: Without scientific proof. Pure conjecture and smack dab against common sense to boot. How would Peterson explain women's progress if indeed these things were true? We have made strides every decade and we are headed toward parity. When we reach parity - will his argument be - well, I guess that women no longer have a tendency towards neuroticism of that women must have become less agreeable???? PS - he won't of course as he believes these traits are innate. Which again, undermines his own theory on causality - if they are innate - how does one explain the progress that has been made? BTW - you do know that in the very recent past - non-agreeable were more likely to be categorized as bitch and shrill by their male peers than they were to be complimented for their strong leadership - dude, I lived that for decades. So, still, a fail for me for this guy. Because as I said before - I believe he is smarter than that. Here is where I would respect Peterson. If he said: - The actual pay gap is XX% when controlled for blah, blah - Where I lose respect for him is when he inserts a totally unsubstantiated thesis for the gap. Because he knows better. He doesn't say that because it won't yield clicks on his video and he won't sell books.

It’s fine to disagree with Peterson, but quite honestly, I do think you’re misrepresenting his argument.

And the notion he is selling junk to bigots is exactly the point I was making earlier about Ocasio-Cortez. This belief that if a message is considered right wing, it’s profit driven, or catering to bigotry, whereas messaging on the left is genuinely held.

On the substance, again, it’s an agree to disagree.

Quoted from Andrew It starts to become sticky when we enter the territory of, “you’re wrong”. You’re entitled to disagree, but that sounds a little angry. I do think you’re being disagreeable on this one. So it’s an easy agree to disagree.

Oh c'mon, Andrew - that's being just a little tender.  I really don't see too much distance between agree to disagree and you're wrong. AND - virtually no distance from calling someone disagreeable. As you just did. The ground ain't any higher there, mate.

Ya see, what you did there is escalate between what is a difference of opinion to asserting that my difference of opinion must be rooted in my emotional state (disagreeable) vs. an honest difference of opinion.

Tsk. Tsk. See kettle......

The next time you see the words... "good point, hadn't thought of it that way" on the internet will be the first time they've ever been written.

It's really why it makes almost zero sense to engage in any political threads. I constantly remind myself of this fact... and yet, I STILL sometimes can't help myself.

Quoted from Andrew It’s fine to disagree with Peterson, but quite honestly, I do think you’re misrepresenting his argument. And the notion he is selling junk to bigots is exactly the point I was making earlier about Ocasio-Cortez. This belief that if a message is considered right wing, it’s profit driven, or catering to bigotry, whereas messaging on the left is genuinely held. On the substance, again, it’s an agree to disagree.

Please be specific - which argument am I misrepresenting? I've seen tons of his videos and posts and believed I cited him him verbatim in this case. I'd be interested in knowing where you think I got him wrong.

In terms of him selling junk...

Junk is your term - but okay. I do think much like others (let's say Shapiro on the right and Franken on the left) they stake out extreme positions in order to generate interest and sell stuff. Moderation doesn't sell. And...

For clarification - I never said I believed that all the views accepted and proposed by the left media are genuinely held. I didn't disagree that they diminish out of hand right-wing views,  pundits and positions. Instead, what I argued was that is exactly also what the righ-wing media does to left-wing views,  pundits, and positions.

Quoted from PKCardinal The next time you see the words... "good point, hadn't thought of it that way" on the internet will be the first time they've ever been written. It's really why it makes almost zero sense to engage in any political threads. I constantly remind myself of this fact... and yet, I STILL sometimes can't help myself.

Brilliantly said.

Or as I guess I would put it in my disagreeable persona

You're right.

Quoted from eldave1 Oh c'mon, Andrew - that's being just a little tender.  I really don't see too much distance between agree to disagree and you're wrong. AND - virtually no distance from calling someone disagreeable. As you just did. The ground ain't any higher there, mate. Ya see, what you did there is escalate between what is a difference of opinion to asserting that my difference of opinion must be rooted in my emotional state (disagreeable) vs. an honest difference of opinion. Tsk. Tsk. See kettle......

To be fair, I said you were being disagreeable, which is different than saying you are disagreeable.

One is temporary, the other is permanent.

Quoted from Andrew I don�t personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election. However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before. The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear. Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view. Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.

From Russia Gate we spin off to election gate.

From election gate, we spin off to Insurrection gate.

From insurrection gate, we spin off toward Alien gate.

Up and until the media becomes an actual arbiter for truth and drops the agenda, this kind of double standard b.s. will only further worsen our divide. It's possible the country just finally breaks up into two separate countries. Oddly enough, when I mention this, the left drools. It might be the only thing we agree on.

One of the more interesting data points was in Michigan where the vote stuffing resulted in the libertarian candidate getting more votes than they should have. It was funny, because the way it worked was - How do you stuff for Biden without Trump also getting more votes? Give it to the Libertarian so it's not so obvious. LOL! Oooops.

But the shenanigans were wide-reaching and varying in the techniques used and often dependent upon the laws within each state. I think some of the Dominion stuff was nonsense. It was about the unfolded paper ballots. Georgia had a large chunk of never-folded "mail in ballots". How do you mail a huge ballot without folding it, yall? LOL - I think that was where they said there was a "leak" haha, this shit cracks me up.

They rigged it for sleepy Joe. I hope the audits find stuff so bad the FBI/CIA has to say the Russians hacked the audit. You know it's coming.

Quoted from eldave1 Please be specific - which argument am I misrepresenting? I've seen tons of his videos and posts and believed I cited him him verbatim in this case. I'd be interested in knowing where you think I got him wrong. In terms of him selling junk... Junk is your term - but okay. I do think much like others (let's say Shapiro on the right and Franken on the left) they stake out extreme positions in order to generate interest and sell stuff. Moderation doesn't sell. And... For clarification - I never said I believed that all the views accepted and proposed by the left media are genuinely held. I didn't disagree that they diminish out of hand right-wing views,  pundits and positions. Instead, what I argued was that is exactly also what the righ-wing media does to left-wing views,  pundits, and positions.

The whole position. Peterson just doesn’t hold the view you’re saying he does.

Quoted from PKCardinal The next time you see the words... "good point, hadn't thought of it that way" on the internet will be the first time they've ever been written. It's really why it makes almost zero sense to engage in any political threads. I constantly remind myself of this fact... and yet, I STILL sometimes can't help myself.

Political debate is good, in my view. I think this one is just fine. There will be some minor frustrations, but that’s natural when discussing meaningful issues where there’s difference.

Doesn’t impact how I see Dave at all. And we already agree we have broadly similar views. Just a few points here and there of difference. Over a beer it would be easier to settle, as any text often gets difficult to confirm tone at times.

Quoted from Andrew To be fair, I said you were being disagreeable, which is different than saying you are disagreeable. One is temporary, the other is permanent.

So....

If you tell me I am being stupid - that would be okay?

If you tell me I am stupid - that is not.

Conversely - if I said ...

You're being wrong....

rather than --

You're wrong

We'd be copesetic????

If so, I got to try this out on the Wife.

WIFE
Could you please take out the trash?

DAVE
You're being overbearing!

WIFE
Say what, dude?

DAVE
I meant that ... um, temporarily you are overbearing - like in the moment.
It's not your permanent state.

WIFE
Uh-huh....

DAVE
We good .... right?

WIFE
You'll be temporarily sleeping on the couch.

Andrew - if this results in my divorce - it's on you.

Quoted from eldave1 So.... If you tell me I am being stupid - that would be okay? If you tell me I am stupid - that is not. Conversely - if I said ... You're being wrong.... rather than -- You're wrong We'd be copesetic???? If so, I got to try this out on the Wife. WIFE Could you please take out the trash? DAVE You're being overbearing! WIFE Say what, dude? DAVE I meant that ... um, temporarily you are overbearing - like in the moment. It's not your permanent state. WIFE Uh-huh.... DAVE We good .... right? WIFE You'll be temporarily sleeping on the couch. Andrew - if this results in my divorce - it's on you.

Haha!

Love it, Dave.  ;D

I've had the 'you're stupid' v 'what you did/said was stupid' debate with significant others many a time.

^ What? You think I'm stupid?

Anyone wanna discuss directed energy weapons and how they were used to destroy the World Trade Center complex on 9/11?






lol

Quoted from Andrew The whole position. Peterson just doesn’t hold the view you’re saying he does.

I agree to disagree

He holds precisely the specific view I articulated.

Quoted from LC Love it, Dave.  ;D I've had the 'you're stupid' v 'what you did/said was stupid' debate with significant others many a time. ^ What? You think I'm stupid?

:)

Just to clear the air, I like everyone here, regardless of whatever political beliefs they hold. So far this has been a fairly civil discussion, considering it's an online message board. lol

Quoted from Robert Timsah Anyone wanna discuss directed energy weapons and how they were used to destroy the World Trade Center complex on 9/11?

I'm game. Lol

Quoted from Zack I'm game. Lol

I don't have the energy, directed or otherwise!  :D

Quoted from Robert Timsah I don't have the energy, directed or otherwise!  :D

Good thinking.

Quoted from eldave1 I agree to disagree He holds precisely the specific view I articulated.

Can you provide proof?

Because I’ve never seen anything at all to support your assertion. You are being very clear you think you’re right, so keen to know what’s propping that belief up.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is what the claim is.

Quoted from eldave1 Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this: " women’s tendency for neuroticism – their likelihood to experience stress, depression and unpredictability – and their high level of agreeableness, to be cooperative and compassionate.

Let's just rename the thread "These videos DESTROY leftists with FACTS and LOGIC" and be done with it...

Quoted from Heretic Let's just rename the thread "These videos DESTROY leftists with FACTS and LOGIC" and be done with it...

Surely when people make bold claims about a society being a patriarchal white supremacy, it’s fair game to hold the claims to account?

That’s what the videos I’ve shared seek to do.

It’s easy to try and frame it as part of the political right / left axis to dismiss the criticism, but surely you agree bold claims require clear evidence?

Quoted from Andrew Surely when people make bold claims about a society being a patriarchal white supremacy, it’s fair game to hold the claims to account? That’s what the videos I’ve shared seek to do. It’s easy to try and frame it as part of the political right / left axis to dismiss the criticism, but surely you agree bold claims require clear evidence?

It's guilty until proven innocent now, Dude. Haven't you heard? lol

Quoted from Andrew Surely when people make bold claims about a society being a patriarchal white supremacy, it’s fair game to hold the claims to account?

Not what I took to be the original topic, but sure! Isn't it odd, then, that none of these people and none of those claims have been cited anywhere in order to be held to account?

This is kinda how I feel: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-real-dangerous-ideas

Quoted from Heretic Not what I took to be the original topic, but sure! Isn't it odd, then, that none of these people and none of those claims have been cited anywhere in order to be held to account? This is kinda how I feel: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/the-real-dangerous-ideas

You’re characterising the criticisms as being OWN THE LIBZ, when it’s really not that.

All of the videos highlight the current issues with the excesses of wokeism. As stated in post yesterday, the range of thinking calling this crap out extends far beyond conservatives circles. This isn’t party political in nature.

The main issue to highlight is the response to wokeism isn’t a fig leaf to be racist / sexist or any-ist, because the woke are comprised of people of all identities, or to engage in political tit-for-tats (although some conservatives are so doing). The issue is with the ideas. Which suck. And divide. And reject liberalism.

Quoted from Andrew You’re characterising the criticisms as being OWN THE LIBZ, when it’s really not that. All of the videos highlight the current issues with the excesses of wokeism. As stated in post yesterday, the range of thinking calling this crap out extends far beyond conservatives circles. This isn’t party political in nature. The main issue to highlight is the response to wokeism isn’t a fig leaf to be racist / sexist or any-ist, because the woke are comprised of people of all identities, or to engage in political tit-for-tats (although some conservatives are so doing). The issue is with the ideas. Which suck. And divide. And reject liberalism.

The alignment of the CIA, FBI, Military, media, entertainment with these woke ideologies is the scary part. The left is already comfortable with abortion, population control, euthanasia, etc. Combine that with a woke government, press, entertainment, etc. YIKES.

Quoted from Andrew The issue is with the ideas. Which suck. And divide. And reject liberalism.

I am all for holding ideas to account. If that is what you are trying to do, then the first step would seem to be indicating exactly what/whose ideas you are holding to account. This, again, has been the intent of most of my previous questions.

But as the article I posted suggests, most of this discourse seems to be people explaining what the "woke" think in order to criticize it, rather than people explaining who the "woke" theorists/activists/commentators are and then arguing with their ideas.

Quoted from Heretic I am all for holding ideas to account. If that is what you are trying to do, then the first step would seem to be indicating exactly what/whose ideas you are holding to account. This, again, has been the intent of most of my previous questions. But as the article I posted suggests, most of this discourse seems to be people explaining what the "woke" think in order to criticize it, rather than people explaining who the "woke" theorists/activists/commentators are and then arguing with their ideas.

That’s fair.

Does my post from yesterday not touch on specific issues? There I touched on it briefly. A problem is trying to condense it down to anything resembling digestible on a forum. It’s the kind of chat we could do in person over drinks, but very difficult to do in this medium without tripping wires. There’s no doubt we come from a broadly similar political persuasion, but the issue of wokeness is constantly proving to be troublesome to adequately tackle.

Or are you referring to the postmodern deep dive?

We can start by stopping using woke is a pejorative.

OXFORD Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism.

Count me in.

Defining woke or wokeism by it's most extreme and inane extensions is too broad a brush stroke.  It would be like me describing what religion is by showing videos of the hideous acts of the Westboro Baptist church and saying - see what religion can lead to? And - far more people on the right endorse religion than those on the left.

Sometimes being woke ain't bad. Here - Jordan Peterson becomes woke.



And bless him for it.  

Quoted from eldave1 We can start by stopping using woke is a pejorative. OXFORD Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism. Count me in. Defining woke or wokeism by it's most extreme and inane extensions is too broad a brush stroke.  It would be like me describing what religion is by showing videos of the hideous acts of the Westboro Baptist church and saying - see what religion can lead to? And - far more people on the right endorse religion than those on the left. Sometimes being woke ain't bad. Here - Jordan Peterson becomes woke. And bless him for it.

The interviewer said the civil rights movement made our society better. I’m genuinely curious when I ask this: Do you agree? Because, according to “the woke”, America is still horrifically racist. Either the civil rights movement worked, or it did not. If it did not, then the interviewer was wrong in his premise. If it did, then America is not the racist hell hole the left makes it out to be.

Can the government legislate morality?

Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve an avowed white racist? I would sure hope not, but that interviewer might insist otherwise, and if he won’t, well then, he’s just as hypocritical as he was making Peterson out to be - when, they’re both hypocrites on this issue. Every statist is. The only way to not be a hypocrite on this matter is to be libertarian about it.

But then we circle back around to the idea that the civil-rights act made people non-racist. Around and around, we go.

Quoted from Robert Timsah Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve an avowed white racist? I would sure hope not. The only way to not be a hypocrite on this matter is to be libertarian about it.

I am going to start by agreeing with you. I lean liberal, but am actually kind of on the side of those cake shop owners, too.

But now, does this logic also apply to social media platforms like Twitter? (Or SimplyScripts, for that matter)

Would a libertarian force them to host content they find objectionable?

Quoted from bert I am going to start by agreeing with you. I lean liberal, but am actually kind of on the side of those cake shop owners, too. But now, does this logic also apply to social media platforms like Twitter? (Or SimplyScripts, for that matter) Would a libertarian force them to host content they find objectionable?

Yes the Civil Rights Movement made things better. It did not make things optimal. I don't quite grasp why you believe that progress is equivalent to completion. Anyway oh, yes it made it better. Now, should a black restaurant owner be required to serve an avowed racist. That's a very interesting proposition. As we both know, the traditional we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone doesn't really mean that. You don't have the right refuse service based on gender, race, other factors. But I will admit you present a challenging question. My answer is no. They should not have that right. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I think you pointed out a sticky widget for sure.

Why I say no. I don't believe a Jew should be allowed to refuse service to a Muslim, or an Athiest refuse service to a Christian.  I.e. service should not be refused based on belief.  That would include our racist.

Quoted from bert I am going to start by agreeing with you. I lean liberal, but am actually kind of on the side of those cake shop owners, too. But now, does this logic also apply to social media platforms like Twitter? (Or SimplyScripts, for that matter) Would a libertarian force them to host content they find objectionable?

No. Republicans, however, might.

Quoted from eldave1 I don't believe a Jew should be allowed to refuse service to a Muslim, or an Athiest refuse service to a Christian.  I.e. service should not be refused based on belief.  That would include our racist.

As a small business owner, I can tell you that we 100% refuse to serve assholes. But, that's pretty much it.

Quoted from eldave1 Yes the Civil Rights Movement made things better. It did not make things optimal. I don't quite grasp why you believe that progress is equivalent to completion. Anyway oh, yes it made it better. Now, should a black restaurant owner be required to serve an avowed racist. That's a very interesting proposition. As we both know, the traditional we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone doesn't really mean that. You don't have the right refuse service based on gender, race, other factors. But I will admit you present a challenging question. My answer is no. They should not have that right. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I think you pointed out a sticky widget for sure. Why I say no. I don't believe a Jew should be allowed to refuse service to a Muslim, or an Athiest refuse service to a Christian.  I.e. service should not be refused based on belief.  That would include our racist.

It's been a while since my Ron Paul days to discuss these things. I forgot how wild they can get. Somebody's going to ask who's going to build the roads!?

Because of the Civil Rights Act, the government might force a black business owner, at gun point, to feed an actual KKK grand wizard racist? That can't be right, but it might be.

This is what Peterson was caught in. It's unwinnable, really. No matter what, someone's coming out a hypocrite, inconsistent or a racist.

I would error more on the side of whatever uses the least amount of force, but that ALWAYS puts me in the minority. As such, let business owners be asshoes if they wish. We'll be fine.

Quoted from Grandma Bear As a small business owner, I can tell you that we 100% refuse to serve assholes. But, that's pretty much it.

Same here, but we may be breaking the law.  ;D

Quoted from Grandma Bear As a small business owner, I can tell you that we 100% refuse to serve assholes. But, that's pretty much it.

I think you're safe as long as you refuse service to all assholes regardless of race or religion:-)

Assholes comes in all shapes and colors. We don't give preferential treatment to any of them. :)

Quoted from eldave1 We can start by stopping using woke is a pejorative. OXFORD Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism. Count me in. Defining woke or wokeism by it's most extreme and inane extensions is too broad a brush stroke.  It would be like me describing what religion is by showing videos of the hideous acts of the Westboro Baptist church and saying - see what religion can lead to? And - far more people on the right endorse religion than those on the left. Sometimes being woke ain't bad. Here - Jordan Peterson becomes woke. And bless him for it.

To be honest, I'm more keen on your proof Peterson believes the pay gap is largely down to "neuroticism".

Only going after you on this because I know it's false and it's good form to retract baseless claims.

And to revisit what woke is... it's an empty vessel.

It's a mindset, and its roots were adapted and coopted by theories based in postmodern thought. That's not opinion; it's a fact. If you're familiar with the literature, you know this to be fact.

So woke was initially coopted by critical theorists like bell hooks, Crenshaw, et al.

The primary one being intersectionality, and its embrace of postmodern theories of power and knowledge, where it's posited knowledge is subjective and culture specific, and that the dominant discourse was created by white men, for white men. Positionality to this power undergirds intersectionality.

The vacuum of 'woke' has since been filled by postcolonial theory, queer theory and a brand of feminism rooted in intersectionality, that expressly rejects second wave feminism and liberalism. Again, none of this is in dispute. The critical theorists coopted woke first and this is how the modern conception of it has become known. To be woke became to embrace these theories. This is simply fact. Denying this, or framing it as right or left is either not knowing the facts, or not caring.

That woke has been coopted again is irrelevant, as is the dictionary definition, which is meaningless to the debate.

As the woke themselves say, 'we have to do the work' and that means understanding what it is.

Seeing it in party politicial terms is to be incomplete in the understanding of it. It's deeply frustrating seeing people discuss wokeism in right and left terms, because it's not seeing the full picture.

We are in an ideological debate as to whether we live in liberal societies or it's replaced by criticial theories. It's really that simple.

As for the Jim Jeffries / Peterson video.

This is what is at stake.

These are very real questions provoked by the broader debate.

The question isn't really should they be served.

The question is, what is a racist / sexist / homophobe, etc, how do we measure a racist / sexist / homophobe, etc and how do then square this.

The most corrosive part of critical theories is they attempt to redefine settled areas of thought within liberal soceities:

1) Racism. For those pushing these ideas, they reject the liberal idea of what racism is: verifiable discrimination, and seek to replace it with power (derived from Focault) + prejudice, ergo they arrive at the destination it's not possible to be racist towards whites, because whites hold all the power (intersectionality + positionality).

2) Due process / lived experience. The critical theorists posit that knowledge production (again, borne of postmodern thought) is subective and race / culture specific (race essentialism), that truth is subjective, thus we arrive at my truth / my lived experience. So by this thinking, if a black man is in a run-off with a white man for a job, and he doesn't get the job, and perceives that reason to be due to racism, it's his lived experience, and thus it's racistr, because as per Kendi, there is only racist and antiracist. There's no due process for the hiring manager, only an assessment of "not in racism occured, but how racism manifested in this situation" (not my quote, obviously).

3) Objective reality. The critical theorists believe knowledge production is an instrument of power (again, as always, this is rooted in postmodernism) and thus objective truth is impossible. Why? Because we are all in a struggle for power, based on our groups, and that knowledge is created solely in this arena. It's why we see moves to decolonise science and maths, which is to unpick the teachings of our past, because the knowledge was created by white men for white men.

This is not in dispute. So arguing about whether Ben Shapiro is an asshole or not is frustrating, because it's covering 0.00007% of what the debate actually is. It's party political posturing.

Quoted from Andrew To be honest, I'm more keen on your proof Peterson believes the pay gap is largely down to "neuroticism". Only going after you on this because I know it's false and it's good form to retract baseless claims.

Andrew – color me confused.   Several times now you have closed our arguments-discussions with the “we’ll have to agree to disagree”.  i.e., I thought you took your ball and went home. So, I failed to see your re-challenge of my argument. Perhaps you could PM me to alert me when we are re-engaging.

Okay – re-engaged. First – before cleaning up my misquoting of Jordan, let’s clear up your misquoting of me. I did not say this:

Quoted Text Peterson believes the pay gap is largely down to "neuroticism".

I said this:

Quoted Text Peterson would have you believe that the gap is primarily explained by this:  women’s tendency for neuroticism – their likelihood to experience stress, depression and unpredictability – and their high level of agreeableness, to be cooperative and compassionate.

I was referencing a collection of personality traits including agreeableness (the one that was most discussed in Peterson’s interview).  HOWEVER, I believe that you are correct that I wrote that post in a manner that it would be reasonable for one to assume that I was directly quoting Peterson.  My mistake was putting it in a quote box as I was quoting an article  assessing Peterson’s theory rather than the actual transcript itself.  As you probably know, those are the traits listed in The Gender Similarities Hypothesis that are classified as heritable.  It was an error on my part including that in a quote box:

Now, back to the point at hand since whether it is five traits or one, it doesn't matter and although I believe that Peterson was referencing the heritable personality traits in general – let’s say just for the sake of argument that he was only referencing agreeableness. That one of the factors, other than sexism, that contributes to the pay gap is that women are more agreeable the men.  His thesis is still that personality differences between the genders is the cause of pay gaps. From the transcript:

Quoted Text Newman: …and on average you’re getting paid nine percent less than a man that’s not fair, is it? Peterson: It depends on why it’s happening. I can give you an example. Okay, there’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Later, he attributes failure to address this to market forces:

Quoted Text Peterson: I can give you an example very quickly. I worked with women who worked in high-powered law firms in Canada for about 15 years and they were as competent and put together as anybody you would ever meet. And we were trying to figure out how to further their careers. And there was a huge debate in Canadian society at that point that was basically ran along the same lines as your argument. If the law firms didn’t use these masculine criteria then perhaps women would do better. But the market sets the damn game. It’s like… Newman: And the market is dominated by men. Peterson: No, it’s not. The market is dominated by women. They make 80 percent of the consumer decisions. That’s not the case at all. 80 percent…

So, let’s start with the latter point first – Peterson’s mischaracterizing  “the market.” While it is true that women make 80 percent of the consumer decisions, that has zero to do with promotional practices within companies. Whether a woman decides to buy Pepsi or Coke, has nothing to do with whether or not either of those companies will have a gender pay gap. That is part of Peterson’s junk.  Clearly, when Newman is referring to the market, it is reference to men making the decisions on employee pay based on the traits they deem desirable (all you need to do is look at her premise statement regarding the law firms).  His statement regarding consumer purchasing decisions is a purposeful misdirect – a shell game, and he is smart enough to know so.

Yes, there are studies that demonstrate that agreeableness is a heritable trait and women are in general more agreeable than men.  There are even studies that show less agreeable people are paid more. What there isn’t are studies that show agreeableness makes one a less productive or effective employee or that the existence of that trait would justify a pay gap. The most likely answer is that:

a)     Women are more agreeable than men.
b)     Less agreeable people earn more pay.
c)     The decision to reward disagreeable employees with higher pay rather than agreeable ones is predominately made by MEN.

That is what Newman meant by “the market” and I believe Peterson knew that as well.
The other thing that I argued (which you kind of just punted on), if one believes that:
a)     The pay gap is due to differences in personality traits between men and women, and that
b)     That these traits are innate to gender.

Then how do you explain progress?

The pay gap has decreased and the percent of women in management has increased for decades and is still on an upward arc. If one believes that innate personality traits account for difference in gender pay (as opposed to the pay decision making process being dominated by males), how did things get better? Women would be just as agreeable now as they were years ago.  I mean if they are not, then you would have to argue it is not an inherent trait – that it is nurture, not nature.  One would also have to argue that the improvement is doomed to inequity. That it has to stop somewhere – that we will never achieve pay parity when all other variables are the same because women are just inherently more agreeable.

Naw – the most likely answer is that men predominately determine who gets paid what and that men do not value agreeableness to the same extent women do.  And that the reason progress will continue is not because women become less agreeable, but rather because they will become a larger part of the decision-making body.

Hope that answered your question.

Quoted from Andrew And to revisit what woke is... it's an empty vessel. It's a mindset, and its roots were adapted and coopted by theories based in postmodern thought. That's not opinion; it's a fact. If you're familiar with the literature, you know this to be fact. So woke was initially coopted by critical theorists like bell hooks, Crenshaw, et al. The primary one being intersectionality, and its embrace of postmodern theories of power and knowledge, where it's posited knowledge is subjective and culture specific, and that the dominant discourse was created by white men, for white men. Positionality to this power undergirds intersectionality. The vacuum of 'woke' has since been filled by postcolonial theory, queer theory and a brand of feminism rooted in intersectionality, that expressly rejects second wave feminism and liberalism. Again, none of this is in dispute. The critical theorists coopted woke first and this is how the modern conception of it has become known. To be woke became to embrace these theories. This is simply fact. Denying this, or framing it as right or left is either not knowing the facts, or not caring. That woke has been coopted again is irrelevant, as is the dictionary definition, which is meaningless to the debate. As the woke themselves say, 'we have to do the work' and that means understanding what it is. Seeing it in party politicial terms is to be incomplete in the understanding of it. It's deeply frustrating seeing people discuss wokeism in right and left terms, because it's not seeing the full picture. We are in an ideological debate as to whether we live in liberal societies or it's replaced by criticial theories. It's really that simple.

Quoted Text That woke has been coopted again is irrelevant, as is the dictionary definition, which is meaningless to the debate.

Naw - definitions are essential.  Otherwise, you confuse people. So, it is important to settle on the meaning of terms.

When some people hear woke they actually do think of social and racial justice in a positive, fair and sustainable manner. They don't think that the absence of equal outcomes by definition means the absence of justice or the existence of racism.  I believe that really is the root concern in all of the posts that Heritic made.

PS - going back to the NFL head coaching example where your response was:

The NFL head coach example is a good one because it locks in opportunity rather than outcome.

Yes, but only in terms of solutions. The problem was identified by analyzing outcomes. The NFL didn't document racist behavior by club owners and then conclude we have racism that needs to be fixed.  They assessed the outcomes of their hiring processes, saw that blacks were underrepresented in actual hires, postulated that there may be an unconscious racial bias in the recruitment process and then implemented a concrete repair to address that.  They did that by giving a preference to blacks. There was no mandate that an NFL club had to interview at least one white person. But there was a mandate that they had to interview at least one black person. They did that because they were being woke. They were alert to injustice in society, especially racism.. And that alertness was derived from assessing outcomes.  Now - had they concluded that by definition, since whites only make up 20% of the league, that any hire of a white coach beyond that 20% must be racist and therefore forbidden - that would be extreme wokeism - and bad.

And that is why definitions matter.

You taking umbrage at seeing it in party political terms is a little - well confusing for me.  Among your many statements.

Quoted Text This is a seriously complacent attitude extremely prevalent in left wing circles; as someone on the left, I see it constantly. It's borne of playing party politics and not wanting to give an inch to the right.

Quoted Text Broadly, my view is the left is good at diagnosing problems re: economics, but lousy at solutions., It's why the message of unfairness resonates, but the solutions are routinely rejected at elections. Because those on the economic left do not believe in moderation, they do not believe in compromise, and they believe they hold a monopoly on good intentions.

And a bunch of others - the point being, hard not to conflate the issue with politics when terms like Left and Right are used incessantly.  As an example, I am left-wing circles and from what I gathered on some of your prior posts - so are you.  Why use the term then? Why not just say what some believe is... Or what this PERSON believes is.  

Quoted from Andrew As for the Jim Jeffries / Peterson video. This is what is at stake. These are very real questions provoked by the broader debate. The question isn't really should they be served. The question is, what is a racist / sexist / homophobe, etc, how do we measure a racist / sexist / homophobe, etc and how do then square this. The most corrosive part of critical theories is they attempt to redefine settled areas of thought within liberal soceities: 1) Racism. For those pushing these ideas, they reject the liberal idea of what racism is: verifiable discrimination, and seek to replace it with power (derived from Focault) + prejudice, ergo they arrive at the destination it's not possible to be racist towards whites, because whites hold all the power (intersectionality + positionality). 2) Due process / lived experience. The critical theorists posit that knowledge production (again, borne of postmodern thought) is subective and race / culture specific (race essentialism), that truth is subjective, thus we arrive at my truth / my lived experience. So by this thinking, if a black man is in a run-off with a white man for a job, and he doesn't get the job, and perceives that reason to be due to racism, it's his lived experience, and thus it's racistr, because as per Kendi, there is only racist and antiracist. There's no due process for the hiring manager, only an assessment of "not in racism occured, but how racism manifested in this situation" (not my quote, obviously). 3) Objective reality. The critical theorists believe knowledge production is an instrument of power (again, as always, this is rooted in postmodernism) and thus objective truth is impossible. Why? Because we are all in a struggle for power, based on our groups, and that knowledge is created solely in this arena. It's why we see moves to decolonise science and maths, which is to unpick the teachings of our past, because the knowledge was created by white men for white men. This is not in dispute. So arguing about whether Ben Shapiro is an asshole or not is frustrating, because it's covering 0.00007% of what the debate actually is. It's party political posturing.

First - I'll agree to disagree.

Can't they both be questions (along with others)? Using a non-bakery example:

Question 1 - is a landowner denying housing to someone based on their skin color racist?
Question 2 - if it is racist, should we require the landowner to rent to people regardless of their skin color.
Question 3 - if we cannot determine if the landowner is racist, should we require it anyway because it makes sense from other perspectives (e.g., societal well-being, etc.).

Longwinded way of saying, ya ultimately still have to ask and answer the question on whether or not they are required to bake the cake.

We also disagree on the harmful impacts of the Ben Shapiro's of the world, Look, I think the dude is bright and well-informed on a lot of issues. But he also contributes to isolation and tribe building - (that's what makes him an asshole).

If I had a nickel for every time he quoted something inane that AOC or some other exteremist said and followed it with the obligatory - see, what the Left would have you believe.... - I'd be rich.

What he should be saying is what AOC would have you believe. Just like Maddow shouldn't quote Taylor Greene and say - what the Right would have you believe. All of these guys (left and right) make money in the tribe-building economy. They are damaging discourse and stifling rational common ground. They ground their daily diatribe not so much is what is being said as who is saying it. And they are doing it for money.  That is why they are important to point out that they are assholes. They are poison. They are dividers.  AND, in my view - they are a lot more dangerous to our society than wokeism is.

Let me ask you an unrelated question.

Let's agree that extreme wokeism is bad (I think we agree on that).

You argue that it's roots are in postmodernism thinking and intersectionality  okay.

Do you believe that any part of its emergence has to do with the failure to effectively address true racist behavior - past or present?

No matter what, there will always be racists. In a free country - you have every right to be racist. I think that's a terrible way to think, but that's their right.

Murder, rape, violence, the violation of individual liberty is far worse than mere racist thoughts or beliefs. As such, I would work *with a racist* to subdue a murderer or rapist. This then gets to the idea that those thoughts, words are the same as violence. Why? To justify their own actual violence, of course.

The point of all of this is in how they use our fear of the word or idea of racism against us. It's extraordinary how well it works. It *feels* like we'd rather be called a murderer than a racist. I can almost see a guy in jail for murder, more upset that people thought he was racist. This can't be true, but again, it just feels like it is. Because of how we've been brainwashed.

Anyway, the one-party state of the media, entertainment, big tech, and Democrats don't care about *actual* racists.

It's just a tool. They just frame their enemies (and their policies) as racist, to avoid a genuine debate of the issues. The right can do this about Israel. Shielding themselves from a genuine debate by labeling their opponents as anti-Semitic.

There are people who'll look you straight in the eye and say - "yes, I'm racist", but interestingly - we're rarely talking about them, no, we're usually talking about political enemies being labeled as racist with the intention (I believe) to stifle debate. Or worse.

Quoted from Robert Timsah The point of all of this is in how they use our fear of the word or idea of racism against us. It's extraordinary how well it works. It *feels* like we'd rather be called a murderer than a racist. I can almost see a guy in jail for murder, more upset that people thought he was racist. This can't be true, but again, it just feels like it is. Because of how we've been brainwashed.

Haha spot on. I can honestly see a situation where someone acknowledges that while they me be guilty of attempted murder, child abuse, and domestic abuse, they are categorically not racist and resent any accusations that they might be.

Funny times to live in.

Quoted from Pleb Haha spot on. I can honestly see a situation where someone acknowledges that while they me be guilty of attempted murder, child abuse, and domestic abuse, they are categorically not racist and resent any accusations that they might be. Funny times to live in.

The Log Line: A mass-murderer, angry after being called racist, breaks out of prison to prove he's not racist by murdering a white family.

Quoted from eldave1 First - I'll agree to disagree. Can't they both be questions (along with others)? Using a non-bakery example: Question 1 - is a landowner denying housing to someone based on their skin color racist? Question 2 - if it is racist, should we require the landowner to rent to people regardless of their skin color. Question 3 - if we cannot determine if the landowner is racist, should we require it anyway because it makes sense from other perspectives (e.g., societal well-being, etc.). Longwinded way of saying, ya ultimately still have to ask and answer the question on whether or not they are required to bake the cake. We also disagree on the harmful impacts of the Ben Shapiro's of the world, Look, I think the dude is bright and well-informed on a lot of issues. But he also contributes to isolation and tribe building - (that's what makes him an asshole). If I had a nickel for every time he quoted something inane that AOC or some other exteremist said and followed it with the obligatory - see, what the Left would have you believe.... - I'd be rich. What he should be saying is what AOC would have you believe. Just like Maddow shouldn't quote Taylor Greene and say - what the Right would have you believe. All of these guys (left and right) make money in the tribe-building economy. They are damaging discourse and stifling rational common ground. They ground their daily diatribe not so much is what is being said as who is saying it. And they are doing it for money.  That is why they are important to point out that they are assholes. They are poison. They are dividers.  AND, in my view - they are a lot more dangerous to our society than wokeism is. Let me ask you an unrelated question. Let's agree that extreme wokeism is bad (I think we agree on that). You argue that it's roots are in postmodernism thinking and intersectionality  okay. Do you believe that any part of its emergence has to do with the failure to effectively address true racist behavior - past or present?

Sorry Dave, I've been offline, and just picked this up.

Quoted Text Do you believe that any part of its emergence has to do with the failure to effectively address true racist behavior - past or present?

No. The current set of ideas have grown out of postmodern theories on knowledge production (Power-Knowledge) and deconstruction.

This thinking essentially posits that truth is subjective, and life is a battle between groups for power, where each group produces its own knowledge and truth. It's why we see lived experience being used as a credibnle method of evidence. This thinking rejects liberalism. Postmodernists rejected liberalism and enlightment values. It's why the thinking attacks science, because science is seen as a production of knowledge created by white men for white men. Those pushing this thinking do not accept the methods of objectivity serve anything but the power of white men.

Now as to how that pertains to intersetionality and applied postmodernism, Crenshaw, Derrick Bell, et al imbibed this thinking on power and knowledge (as posited by Focault, Derrida, etc) as the foundational structure upon which life is built. Now there is some level of truth in the idea of power as the framing and scaffolding, but the data points to this being along multiple lines, and not just race or "minorities", which is where intersectionality (and positionality) kicks in. This is where we see ideas like white privilege, white fragility and the rest of the utter bullshit that is demonstrably false.

When incidents like George Floyd happen, those pushing these ideas use it as evidence of their ideological slant, and most decent people rightly outraged by what happened are looking for answers. And these are ready made answers with crystal clear right and wrongs. It requires no thinking or nuance for someone to sign up to the ideas, and so they proliferate.

It eliminates progress made, and the day-to-day realities of culture proliferates outcomes alongside unfairness baked into the system. That unfairness is economic, not racial. There are multipliers on race, yes, but the core remains the haves and have nots.

Quoted from eldave1 Naw - definitions are essential.  Otherwise, you confuse people. So, it is important to settle on the meaning of terms. When some people hear woke they actually do think of social and racial justice in a positive, fair and sustainable manner. They don't think that the absence of equal outcomes by definition means the absence of justice or the existence of racism.  I believe that really is the root concern in all of the posts that Heritic made. PS - going back to the NFL head coaching example where your response was: The NFL head coach example is a good one because it locks in opportunity rather than outcome. Yes, but only in terms of solutions. The problem was identified by analyzing outcomes. The NFL didn't document racist behavior by club owners and then conclude we have racism that needs to be fixed.  They assessed the outcomes of their hiring processes, saw that blacks were underrepresented in actual hires, postulated that there may be an unconscious racial bias in the recruitment process and then implemented a concrete repair to address that.  They did that by giving a preference to blacks. There was no mandate that an NFL club had to interview at least one white person. But there was a mandate that they had to interview at least one black person. They did that because they were being woke. They were alert to injustice in society, especially racism.. And that alertness was derived from assessing outcomes.  Now - had they concluded that by definition, since whites only make up 20% of the league, that any hire of a white coach beyond that 20% must be racist and therefore forbidden - that would be extreme wokeism - and bad. And that is why definitions matter. You taking umbrage at seeing it in party political terms is a little - well confusing for me.  Among your many statements. And a bunch of others - the point being, hard not to conflate the issue with politics when terms like Left and Right are used incessantly.  As an example, I am left-wing circles and from what I gathered on some of your prior posts - so are you.  Why use the term then? Why not just say what some believe is... Or what this PERSON believes is.

The woke thing is directly sourced from the ideas I keep mentioning. That's not in dispute, and however we cut it, the people pushing this utter shite are on the left, but they are not the left.

It's difficult to use consistent labels, and that's just needing an editor!

It requires substantial page count to fully explore these ideas, but the best contrast is to put them alongside liberalism.

Firstly because thet reject liberalism, and liberalism (whether you're on right or left) remains the foundational bedrock for all.

As for handling racism, where liberalism advocates eliminating the race and seeing the individual, woke-ism advocates for doubling down on the race and grouping people together in power struggles.

There are so many more examples, but the only frame we need is liberalism vs. woke-ism because there's no doubt woke-ism is a rejection of liberalism. That's not my opinion, that's evident in the papers like Mapping the Margins, Kendi's work, etc.

Quoted from eldave1 Andrew – color me confused.   Several times now you have closed our arguments-discussions with the “we’ll have to agree to disagree”.  i.e., I thought you took your ball and went home. So, I failed to see your re-challenge of my argument. Perhaps you could PM me to alert me when we are re-engaging. Okay – re-engaged. First – before cleaning up my misquoting of Jordan, let’s clear up your misquoting of me. I did not say this: I said this: I was referencing a collection of personality traits including agreeableness (the one that was most discussed in Peterson’s interview).  HOWEVER, I believe that you are correct that I wrote that post in a manner that it would be reasonable for one to assume that I was directly quoting Peterson.  My mistake was putting it in a quote box as I was quoting an article  assessing Peterson’s theory rather than the actual transcript itself.  As you probably know, those are the traits listed in The Gender Similarities Hypothesis that are classified as heritable.  It was an error on my part including that in a quote box: Now, back to the point at hand since whether it is five traits or one, it doesn't matter and although I believe that Peterson was referencing the heritable personality traits in general – let’s say just for the sake of argument that he was only referencing agreeableness. That one of the factors, other than sexism, that contributes to the pay gap is that women are more agreeable the men.  His thesis is still that personality differences between the genders is the cause of pay gaps. From the transcript: Later, he attributes failure to address this to market forces: So, let’s start with the latter point first – Peterson’s mischaracterizing  “the market.” While it is true that women make 80 percent of the consumer decisions, that has zero to do with promotional practices within companies. Whether a woman decides to buy Pepsi or Coke, has nothing to do with whether or not either of those companies will have a gender pay gap. That is part of Peterson’s junk.  Clearly, when Newman is referring to the market, it is reference to men making the decisions on employee pay based on the traits they deem desirable (all you need to do is look at her premise statement regarding the law firms).  His statement regarding consumer purchasing decisions is a purposeful misdirect – a shell game, and he is smart enough to know so. Yes, there are studies that demonstrate that agreeableness is a heritable trait and women are in general more agreeable than men.  There are even studies that show less agreeable people are paid more. What there isn’t are studies that show agreeableness makes one a less productive or effective employee or that the existence of that trait would justify a pay gap. The most likely answer is that: a)     Women are more agreeable than men. b)     Less agreeable people earn more pay. c)     The decision to reward disagreeable employees with higher pay rather than agreeable ones is predominately made by MEN. That is what Newman meant by “the market” and I believe Peterson knew that as well. The other thing that I argued (which you kind of just punted on), if one believes that: a)     The pay gap is due to differences in personality traits between men and women, and that b)     That these traits are innate to gender. Then how do you explain progress? The pay gap has decreased and the percent of women in management has increased for decades and is still on an upward arc. If one believes that innate personality traits account for difference in gender pay (as opposed to the pay decision making process being dominated by males), how did things get better? Women would be just as agreeable now as they were years ago.  I mean if they are not, then you would have to argue it is not an inherent trait – that it is nurture, not nature.  One would also have to argue that the improvement is doomed to inequity. That it has to stop somewhere – that we will never achieve pay parity when all other variables are the same because women are just inherently more agreeable. Naw – the most likely answer is that men predominately determine who gets paid what and that men do not value agreeableness to the same extent women do.  And that the reason progress will continue is not because women become less agreeable, but rather because they will become a larger part of the decision-making body. Hope that answered your question.

Peterson can be not to someone's taste, which is all good, but we do need to treat his ideas honestly, and he doesn't believe what many say he does.

I'm keeping this short not in a dismissive way, but because we could go on and on about it forever, but I don't believe we are actually that far apart on the subtsance here.

Quoted from Andrew Sorry Dave, I've been offline, and just picked this up. No. The current set of ideas have grown out of postmodern theories on knowledge production (Power-Knowledge) and deconstruction.

A bit surprised by your answer here.  Postmodernism and Deconstruction are just one of dozens of philosophical movements that have developed since man crawled out of the caves.  I do think you absolutely nail what they are – but not what the catalyst is for their emergence (their growing popularity).  In my view, philosophical constructs are not mandated – they are adopted by people and/or institutions.  The critical issue remains why are they adopted? What needs are being satisfied? Certainly not Derrida’s, Quine’s or others – long dead.

Quoted Text It eliminates progress made, and the day-to-day realities of culture proliferates outcomes alongside unfairness baked into the system. That unfairness is economic, not racial. There are multipliers on race, yes, but the core remains the haves and have nots.

This is one of the areas where we have a gap between us.  We will probably not see eye to eye on this.  The best example I have is from someone who described it as a monopoly game. Three white dudes sit down to play monopoly. They are all giving the exact same amount of money, follow the exact same rules, etc. They play for four hours building up their bankrolls, buying property and hotels, etc. At hour five, they decide that they ought to let black people play. AND – to ensure no discrimination, the Black player will start out with the same bankroll and follow the exact same rules as the three white players.  Not an ounce of difference in the game rules based on race. Problem is – the white dudes have been playing for 5 hours and already have larger bankrolls and multiple properties with rents that will bankrupt the black player the minute he lands on one. So, the fact that the rules are color blind doesn’t make up for the disadvantage of the black dude not being allowed to play the first 4 hours.

Now – how does someone determine if black monopoly players are disadvantaged? Certainly, couldn’t do it by looking at the rules – they are identical. Only the outcome and the disparate results by race would tell you that there may be a problem.

And it still rears its ugly head – just very recently, the NFL got caught “race norming” concussion settlements.  In its use of race-norming, the league compares a given player's current cognitive test scores with the supposed norm for his demographic group. Under the methodology, black players are assumed to possess a lower level of cognitive function than the average white player. A pretty good article about it here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57336282

And of course, there are dozens of other examples. Job applications are a good one.  For example, studies have proven that even when credentials are identical – there is a fifty percent difference in employer call back rates for white sounding names (Emily, Greg) then there are for black sounding names (Lakisha, Jamal).  The same has been proven in mortgage rates, credit card approval – etc. etc. i.e., Institutions are still absolutely without a doubt discriminating against people solely on the color of their skin.   One’s race is still more than just a multiplier, regardless of whether the black person is a have or have not.

I don’t think we’ll ever reach agreement here – but it has been a worthwhile discussion.

Quoted from Andrew The woke thing is directly sourced from the ideas I keep mentioning. That's not in dispute, and however we cut it, the people pushing this utter shite are on the left, but they are not the left. It's difficult to use consistent labels, and that's just needing an editor! It requires substantial page count to fully explore these ideas, but the best contrast is to put them alongside liberalism. Firstly because thet reject liberalism, and liberalism (whether you're on right or left) remains the foundational bedrock for all. As for handling racism, where liberalism advocates eliminating the race and seeing the individual, woke-ism advocates for doubling down on the race and grouping people together in power struggles. There are so many more examples, but the only frame we need is liberalism vs. woke-ism because there's no doubt woke-ism is a rejection of liberalism. That's not my opinion, that's evident in the papers like Mapping the Margins, Kendi's work, etc.

Again - we are not going to reach an agreement here. I will ask you a follow-up question.

In your view/context, if one believes that:

- Systemic racism still exists at a material level, and,
- That it is important to not only assess rules and processes but also to investigate disparate outcomes to determine if racism is a factor.

Does that make you woke. Is that wokeism?  

Quoted from Andrew Peterson can be not to someone's taste, which is all good, but we do need to treat his ideas honestly, and he doesn't believe what many say he does. I'm keeping this short not in a dismissive way, but because we could go on and on about it forever, but I don't believe we are actually that far apart on the subtsance here.

We'll let this one lie. Think we have beaten the horse sufficiently :)

Quoted from eldave1 The best example I have is from someone who described it as a monopoly game. Three white dudes sit down to play monopoly. They are all giving the exact same amount of money, follow the exact same rules, etc. They play for four hours building up their bankrolls, buying property and hotels, etc. At hour five, they decide that they ought to let black people play. AND – to ensure no discrimination, the Black player will start out with the same bankroll and follow the exact same rules as the three white players.  Not an ounce of difference in the game rules based on race. Problem is – the white dudes have been playing for 5 hours and already have larger bankrolls and multiple properties with rents that will bankrupt the black player the minute he lands on one. So, the fact that the rules are color blind doesn’t make up for the disadvantage of the black dude not being allowed to play the first 4 hours. Now – how does someone determine if black monopoly players are disadvantaged? Certainly, couldn’t do it by looking at the rules – they are identical. Only the outcome and the disparate results by race would tell you that there may be a problem.

If we add Asians into the mix, they join the game at the end and still kick everybody's ass. LOL

Quoted from eldave1 A bit surprised by your answer here.  Postmodernism and Deconstruction are just one of dozens of philosophical movements that have developed since man crawled out of the caves.  I do think you absolutely nail what they are – but not what the catalyst is for their emergence (their growing popularity).  In my view, philosophical constructs are not mandated – they are adopted by people and/or institutions.  The critical issue remains why are they adopted? What needs are being satisfied? Certainly not Derrida’s, Quine’s or others – long dead. This is one of the areas where we have a gap between us.  We will probably not see eye to eye on this.  The best example I have is from someone who described it as a monopoly game. Three white dudes sit down to play monopoly. They are all giving the exact same amount of money, follow the exact same rules, etc. They play for four hours building up their bankrolls, buying property and hotels, etc. At hour five, they decide that they ought to let black people play. AND – to ensure no discrimination, the Black player will start out with the same bankroll and follow the exact same rules as the three white players.  Not an ounce of difference in the game rules based on race. Problem is – the white dudes have been playing for 5 hours and already have larger bankrolls and multiple properties with rents that will bankrupt the black player the minute he lands on one. So, the fact that the rules are color blind doesn’t make up for the disadvantage of the black dude not being allowed to play the first 4 hours. Now – how does someone determine if black monopoly players are disadvantaged? Certainly, couldn’t do it by looking at the rules – they are identical. Only the outcome and the disparate results by race would tell you that there may be a problem. And it still rears its ugly head – just very recently, the NFL got caught “race norming” concussion settlements.  In its use of race-norming, the league compares a given player's current cognitive test scores with the supposed norm for his demographic group. Under the methodology, black players are assumed to possess a lower level of cognitive function than the average white player. A pretty good article about it here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57336282 And of course, there are dozens of other examples. Job applications are a good one.  For example, studies have proven that even when credentials are identical – there is a fifty percent difference in employer call back rates for white sounding names (Emily, Greg) then there are for black sounding names (Lakisha, Jamal).  The same has been proven in mortgage rates, credit card approval – etc. etc. i.e., Institutions are still absolutely without a doubt discriminating against people solely on the color of their skin.   One’s race is still more than just a multiplier, regardless of whether the black person is a have or have not. I don’t think we’ll ever reach agreement here – but it has been a worthwhile discussion.

The core issue here is how we define white.

As if white is a monolith of privilege and equality within the race.

It’s this faulty assumption at the heart of the issue.

Those who push these theories always just refer to “whites”, meaning they jumble up the enormous disparities between rich whites and poor whites. It’s deliberately done, because if class is a variable factored in, it completely blows the race-based argument apart.

Yes, if the three whites in the example are from the upper strata of society, the point is valid. The reality, however, is that those three white men will statistically include whites representative of the economic ladder, and will show the same core disadvantage. Yes, there are race-based multipliers, but the reality is economic privilege (or class privilege) is what matters.

Large data blocks labelled “white” do no segment by class. It’s such a frustrating flaw in the theory, and is eventually going to be what downs these ideas. They simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. And they misapply their source material (postmodern thinking). It’s definitely true Foucault and Derrida did not directly create the woke-ism that followed, but their ideas around power, knowledge, etc, absolutely created the framework that subsequent thinkers used to build out ideas that present simple thinking as profound.

It’s flourished because of a lack of leadership (accelerated by Trump) and a generally vapid society that wants right and wrong answers > nuance and uncertainty.

Quoted from eldave1 Again - we are not going to reach an agreement here. I will ask you a follow-up question. In your view/context, if one believes that: - Systemic racism still exists at a material level, and, - That it is important to not only assess rules and processes but also to investigate disparate outcomes to determine if racism is a factor. Does that make you woke. Is that wokeism?

Systemic racism is borne of the same faulty thinking.

Intrinsically, it is meaningless, because it’s not supported by fact or data. It utilises select correlations, refuses to explore causation, and then frames scrutiny as evidence of its thesis.

If I ask you, how do you define systemic racism in practical and demonstrable terms, how would you go about it?

Because that’s really what matters. We need to be able to support the claim of systemic racism.

None of this is to say there are not factors within the system governing outcomes, but data points to class being the driver, with race as a multiplier.

Liberalism has the better approach to rectifying the multipliers, but also generally addressing inequality.

https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real

This is a good example of how systemic racism is presented and explained. Which is to say point out correlation and refuse to explore causation, or drill down into causes or deeper analysis of the data.

The point here about white population and white wealth. Fundamentally dishonest, or intellectually challenged. It is hard to know which, quite honestly.

The obvious question here is: what proportion of that 90% is owned by the 70%.

That’s the next step that is ignored, because to explore that shreds the race-based argument. It shows the wealth is concentrated in an extremely small %, who happen to be white. Being white isn’t what drives the accumulation of wealth. What drives it is access to networks, economic privilege and the luck of being born into an elite.

Why the postmodern thinking is so crucial is that it centres on power and knowledge, and the subsequent thinker framed that power and knowledge theory entirely on race, so of course they refuse to go deeper, because it fundamentally disproves their thesis.

Bernie 2016 was on the right page. He was going after the economic structure. The same economic structure that drilling down on the white and proportion of wealth example would showcase. Poor whites and poor blacks have the same common enemy: an economic system that benefits so few.

Quoted from Andrew The core issue here is how we define white. As if white is a monolith of privilege and equality within the race. It’s this faulty assumption at the heart of the issue. Those who push these theories always just refer to “whites”, meaning they jumble up the enormous disparities between rich whites and poor whites. It’s deliberately done, because if class is a variable factored in, it completely blows the race-based argument apart. Yes, if the three whites in the example are from the upper strata of society, the point is valid. The reality, however, is that those three white men will statistically include whites representative of the economic ladder, and will show the same core disadvantage. Yes, there are race-based multipliers, but the reality is economic privilege (or class privilege) is what matters. Large data blocks labelled “white” do no segment by class. It’s such a frustrating flaw in the theory, and is eventually going to be what downs these ideas. They simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. And they misapply their source material (postmodern thinking). It’s definitely true Foucault and Derrida did not directly create the woke-ism that followed, but their ideas around power, knowledge, etc, absolutely created the framework that subsequent thinkers used to build out ideas that present simple thinking as profound. It’s flourished because of a lack of leadership (accelerated by Trump) and a generally vapid society that wants right and wrong answers > nuance and uncertainty.

Poor blacks are in fact disadvantaged versus poor whites. The job applicant study is just one of hundreds of studies on this.

Rich blacks are disadvantaged versus rich whites. For example, the NFL’s race norming practices are emblematic of that. These dudes all make the same boatload of money. Blacks were assumed to have a lower cognitive baseline simply based on the color of their skin.

The monopoly example applies regardless of income level. Assume that all of the players are poor – have the exact same economic status. The fact that the three white players got to start long before the black one is what creates the advantage. Now, make that wait generational – and the impact just piles up.

Now, I do detest terms like white privilege because I do not believe that one person’s disadvantage equates to another person’s privilege. I do hate when the news reports that blacks were more likely to get Covid than whites when in fact income, in that case, is the relevant factor. etc. etc. etc. So we share a disdain for many of the modern-day mechanics employed by those pushing agendas – but may disagree on the extent of the existence of racism.

I believe that blacks in general, regardless of income level, are at an individual and systemic disadvantage.  I believe that often that is not detected until one examines outcomes as well as processes.

I also believe that I can hold those beliefs while at the same time rejecting postmodernism is a philosophy. I believe that the rejection of that ism and the belief that there is individual and systemic racism are not mutually exclusive.

Quoted from Andrew https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/systemic-racism-is-real This is a good example of how systemic racism is presented and explained. Which is to say point out correlation and refuse to explore causation, or drill down into causes or deeper analysis of the data. The point here about white population and white wealth. Fundamentally dishonest, or intellectually challenged. It is hard to know which, quite honestly. The obvious question here is: what proportion of that 90% is owned by the 70%. That’s the next step that is ignored, because to explore that shreds the race-based argument. It shows the wealth is concentrated in an extremely small %, who happen to be white. Being white isn’t what drives the accumulation of wealth. What drives it is access to networks, economic privilege and the luck of being born into an elite. Why the postmodern thinking is so crucial is that it centres on power and knowledge, and the subsequent thinker framed that power and knowledge theory entirely on race, so of course they refuse to go deeper, because it fundamentally disproves their thesis. Bernie 2016 was on the right page. He was going after the economic structure. The same economic structure that drilling down on the white and proportion of wealth example would showcase. Poor whites and poor blacks have the same common enemy: an economic system that benefits so few.

Read that article a while back. Some things in that article were inflammatory and misleading and some things were accurate.

Yes - many things labeled as racism are more closely aligned with income disparities - regardless of race. However, many discriminatory practices are based simply on race. And many of the differences in success are attributable to historic racism (see Monoploy game)

Quoted from eldave1 Poor blacks are in fact disadvantaged versus poor whites. The job applicant study is just one of hundreds of studies on this. Rich blacks are disadvantaged versus rich whites. For example, the NFL’s race norming practices are emblematic of that. These dudes all make the same boatload of money. Blacks were assumed to have a lower cognitive baseline simply based on the color of their skin. The monopoly example applies regardless of income level. Assume that all of the players are poor – have the exact same economic status. The fact that the three white players got to start long before the black one is what creates the advantage. Now, make that wait generational – and the impact just piles up. Now, I do detest terms like white privilege because I do not believe that one person’s disadvantage equates to another person’s privilege. I do hate when the news reports that blacks were more likely to get Covid than whites when in fact income, in that case, is the relevant factor. etc. etc. etc. So we share a disdain for many of the modern-day mechanics employed by those pushing agendas – but may disagree on the extent of the existence of racism. I believe that blacks in general, regardless of income level, are at an individual and systemic disadvantage.  I believe that often that is not detected until one examines outcomes as well as processes. I also believe that I can hold those beliefs while at the same time rejecting postmodernism is a philosophy. I believe that the rejection of that ism and the belief that there is individual and systemic racism are not mutually exclusive.

Completely agree that individuals can hold views that cross ideological boundaries.

But you’re not woke.

And the woke absolutely do believe systemic racism and white privilege are bound. I’m not really presenting your views. I’m presenting the views of the woke, who believe as I’m presenting. And this thinking is clustered (across races) in media, sports, politics, and disproportionately by people of wealth.

It’s not a set of ideas generally held by everyday people, because they’re living the reality, and know full well the theory is utter bullshit. But these everyday people have no one representing them on the left, and had Trump on the right. And they have a media in thrall to these ideas.

This is the core problem, and it’s why we see videos like those that started the thread.

Quoted from Andrew Bernie 2016 was on the right page. He was going after the economic structure. The same economic structure that drilling down on the white and proportion of wealth example would showcase. Poor whites and poor blacks have the same common enemy: an economic system that benefits so few.

I agree with your characterization of Bernie - but I am not a fan. e.g., I don't believe in free college. I believe in affordable college. I don't believe in eliminating a private insurance option. I believe in strong border security, etc - so he left me out in the cold in several places although I agree with his emphasis on economics is a key driver and I do believe he is sincere. But I am very pleased that Biden beat him.

Quoted from Andrew Systemic racism is borne of the same faulty thinking. Intrinsically, it is meaningless, because it’s not supported by fact or data. It utilises select correlations, refuses to explore causation, and then frames scrutiny as evidence of its thesis. If I ask you, how do you define systemic racism in practical and demonstrable terms, how would you go about it? Because that’s really what matters. We need to be able to support the claim of systemic racism. None of this is to say there are not factors within the system governing outcomes, but data points to class being the driver, with race as a multiplier. Liberalism has the better approach to rectifying the multipliers, but also generally addressing inequality.

Systemic racism = Systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage a race. It can be current or it can be past and still have a modern-day effect.

Quoted from Andrew Completely agree that individuals can hold views that cross ideological boundaries. But you’re not woke. And the woke absolutely do believe systemic racism and white privilege are bound. I’m not really presenting your views. I’m presenting the views of the woke, who believe as I’m presenting. And this thinking is clustered (across races) in media, sports, politics, and disproportionately by people of wealth. It’s not a set of ideas generally held by everyday people, because they’re living the reality, and know full well the theory is utter bullshit. But these everyday people have no one representing them on the left, and had Trump on the right. And they have a media in thrall to these ideas. This is the core problem, and it’s why we see videos like those that started the thread.

You're presenting the views of extreme wokeism.  Which we both agree is harmful. There is also a rational woke. Just like there is an extreme Right and a  rational Right.

Quoted from eldave1 I agree with your characterization of Bernie - but I am not a fan. e.g., I don't believe in free college. I believe in affordable college. I don't believe in eliminating a private insurance option. I believe in strong border security, etc - so he left me out in the cold in several places although I agree with his emphasis on economics is a key driver and I do believe he is sincere. But I am very pleased that Biden beat him.

This goes back to my previous point about what I called, "the economic left" being great at identifying symptoms, but terrible at solutions.

Bernie perfectly articulates this point.

Quoted from Andrew This goes back to my previous point about what I called, "the economic left" being great at identifying symptoms, but terrible at solutions. Bernie perfectly articulates this point.

The economic left elected Biden. Bernie was rejected because his solutions were too extreme.

Quoted from eldave1 Systemic racism = Systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage a race. It can be current or it can be past and still have a modern-day effect.

Therein lies the problem. It sounds nice and sensible, but we have to quantify what those procedures and processes are. When those questions are asked, the very act of questioning is used as evidence of the thesis, i.e. a white person asking this is unwilling to accept their white privilege, hence their defensiveness.

It's obviously a dumb, transparent tactic, but is extremely effective when people have no backbone to call it out.

If anyone makes a claim that requires proof, then of course they're expected to provide prood to substantiate the claim. The woke response is that the very nature of that (claims requiring proof) is a construct of white supremacy, and was baked into the idea of objectivity itself which is to support and protect white men.

Quoted from eldave1 You're presenting the views of extreme wokeism.  Which we both agree is harmful. There is also a rational woke. Just like there is an extreme Right and a  rational Right.

Woke-ism / whatever you want to call it is extreme. The ideas inclusive in a coherent body of ideas (white supremacy, white privilege, cultural appropriation, intersetionality, and on and on and on) is what "woke" is. Not some fluffy and inherently meaningless term used previously to describe a mindset. This appropriation of woke was done by the very people pushing the ideas I just mentioned. That's the issue. And these ideas are inherently illiberal. By definition.

Quoted from eldave1 The economic left elected Biden. Bernie was rejected because his solutions were too extreme.

Opposition to Trump elected Biden at the general.

Motivation to beat Trump elected Biden at the primaries.

Had Biden been up against a sensible Republican, he would have lost. No doubt. And the reason being was he was a vessel for the woke. Even though he himself is obviously not woke.

If Biden is up against a sensible Republican in 2024, he'll lose. People do not like that he is a vessel for the woke. It just happened that was slightly more popular than Trump.

Trump should've been annhilated at the general.

Anyway, this is me for the day x

Quoted from Andrew Therein lies the problem. It sounds nice and sensible, but we have to quantify what those procedures and processes are. When those questions are asked, the very act of questioning is used as evidence of the thesis, i.e. a white person asking this is unwilling to accept their white privilege, hence their defensiveness. It's obviously a dumb, transparent tactic, but is extremely effective when people have no backbone to call it out. If anyone makes a claim that requires proof, then of course they're expected to provide prood to substantiate the claim. The woke response is that the very nature of that (claims requiring proof) is a construct of white supremacy, and was baked into the idea of objectivity itself which is to support and protect white men.

Because it is nice and sensible.

It is not difficult to quantify what those procedures and processes are. I have already laid out several examples and could lay out dozens more - because I am not sure that moves the needle for you.

I think we are here:

Past obvious and documented racism (slavery, Jim Crow, black voter suppression) certainly have had an impact on the current state of the black race. I believe that is woke thinking and I am a fan.

That merely eliminating racist processes and barriers does not immediately result in equality of outcomes given the relative starting points. I believe that is woke thinking and I am a fan.

That it is not productive or effective to create and implement solutions based on race when the disadvantage (in most cases - there are still exceptions) are manifested in economic disparity.  Address that disparity and you will address much, but not all, of the problem.

Quoted from Andrew Opposition to Trump elected Biden at the general. Motivation to beat Trump elected Biden at the primaries. Had Biden been up against a sensible Republican, he would have lost. No doubt. And the reason being was he was a vessel for the woke. Even though he himself is obviously not woke. If Biden is up against a sensible Republican in 2024, he'll lose. People do not like that he is a vessel for the woke. It just happened that was slightly more popular than Trump. Trump should've been annhilated at the general.

Total conjecture there, mate.  Especially sense we have a long history of Democrats beating sensible Republicans. For all you know - your average Republican could have been slaughtered by Biden and that the only reason it was so close was the fervent nature of the Trump cultists.

Quoted from Andrew Woke-ism / whatever you want to call it is extreme. The ideas inclusive in a coherent body of ideas (white supremacy, white privilege, cultural appropriation, intersetionality, and on and on and on) is what "woke" is. Not some fluffy and inherently meaningless term used previously to describe a mindset. This appropriation of woke was done by the very people pushing the ideas I just mentioned. That's the issue. And these ideas are inherently illiberal. By definition.

I believe there is a moderate and reasonable "woke".

Quoted from Andrew Anyway, this is me for the day x

Cool - I'm exhausted :)

Good discussion.

This "woke" stuff is not the first time.  Books by Kimball. Eros , Civilization were labeled "the bible of the Counterculture (1955) also "One Dimensional Man 1964 points to exactly what's going on today? Although I do not agree with the solutions/alternatives he puts forward, this book 'woke' me up... ;D

Carry on...

Quoted from ghost and_ghostie gal This "woke" stuff is not the first time.  Books by Kimball. Eros , Civilization were labeled "the bible of the Counterculture (1955) also "One Dimensional Man 1964 points to exactly what's going on today? Although I do not agree with the solutions/alternatives he puts forward, this book 'woke' me up... ;D Carry on...

Damn. I thought it started with Katy Perry (I'm wide awake:)

Hahaha! Too funny, Dave. :)

Quoted from ghost and_ghostie gal This "woke" stuff is not the first time.  Books by Kimball.

Ha! Love the Marcuse shoutout.

And Kimball's a great example of someone who's been beating this drum since the 80s. From Tenured Radicals to now, the feminist tyranny always seems to be just around the corner.

(Well not quite to now, because recently Kimball's spending his time tweeting about the "Wuhan-Fauci flu," LOL)

Quoted from eldave1 Damn. I thought it started with Katy Perry

Not to mention when Kesha woke up in the morning feeling like P. Diddy.

Quoted from eldave1 Because it is nice and sensible. It is not difficult to quantify what those procedures and processes are. I have already laid out several examples and could lay out dozens more - because I am not sure that moves the needle for you. I think we are here: Past obvious and documented racism (slavery, Jim Crow, black voter suppression) certainly have had an impact on the current state of the black race. I believe that is woke thinking and I am a fan. That merely eliminating racist processes and barriers does not immediately result in equality of outcomes given the relative starting points. I believe that is woke thinking and I am a fan. That it is not productive or effective to create and implement solutions based on race when the disadvantage (in most cases - there are still exceptions) are manifested in economic disparity.  Address that disparity and you will address much, but not all, of the problem.

This is the thing... those first two points are not woke.

To recognise legacy in previous discrimination is not a woke position. The reality is the woke have successfully rebranded all attempts to fight racism as 'woke' (both when the ideas are woke, and the ideas are liberal - two distinct prospects) and framed all criticism of woke ideas as racism / support (tacit / 'unconscious') of racism.

It's a great trick, but it's not reality.

Woke is Meghan Markle framing all criticism of her as racism; woke is Oprah Winfrey lecturing millions of poor white people as holding privilege.

MLK was liberal, and his solutions (colourblindness, value the individual, reject race essentialism) were liberal. The woke do not support colourblindness, which they see as perpetuating racism; the woke do not value the individual, because their frame of reference is Focault, i.e. knowledge production and power is a battle of groups; the woke support race essentialism, i.e. the nascent black supremacy movement embodied in ideas such as #black excellence, as Terry Crews rightly called out.

Second point: again, this is recognition of legacy, and the liberalism of Clinton, for example, is a body of thought valuing incremental change.

No one denies legacy impacts outcomes, and I reference that as racial multipliers.

Quoted from eldave1 Cool - I'm exhausted :) Good discussion.

:)

Quoted from Heretic Ha! Love the Marcuse shoutout. And Kimball's a great example of someone who's been beating this drum since the 80s. From Tenured Radicals to now, the feminist tyranny always seems to be just around the corner. (Well not quite to now, because recently Kimball's spending his time tweeting about the "Wuhan-Fauci flu," LOL) Not to mention when Kesha woke up in the morning feeling like P. Diddy.

LMAO. :)-Andrea

This thread should really be called:
I'll keep coming back to this...

Btw, loving the avatar A & R.

Quoted from Andrew This is the thing... those first two points are not woke. To recognise legacy in previous discrimination is not a woke position. The reality is the woke have successfully rebranded all attempts to fight racism as 'woke' (both when the ideas are woke, and the ideas are liberal - two distinct prospects) and framed all criticism of woke ideas as racism / support (tacit / 'unconscious') of racism. It's a great trick, but it's not reality. Woke is Meghan Markle framing all criticism of her as racism; woke is Oprah Winfrey lecturing millions of poor white people as holding privilege. MLK was liberal, and his solutions (colourblindness, value the individual, reject race essentialism) were liberal. The woke do not support colourblindness, which they see as perpetuating racism; the woke do not value the individual, because their frame of reference is Focault, i.e. knowledge production and power is a battle of groups; the woke support race essentialism, i.e. the nascent black supremacy movement embodied in ideas such as #black excellence, as Terry Crews rightly called out. Second point: again, this is recognition of legacy, and the liberalism of Clinton, for example, is a body of thought valuing incremental change. No one denies legacy impacts outcomes, and I reference that as racial multipliers.

This is the thing... those first two things are indeed woke.

And therein lies our problem. I do not cede to you the ground to define it nor you to me. We both could post dozens of links supporting our views on the origins and meaning of woke and will never reach consensus.  So, the general debate on woke as a good or bad thing really can go nowhere.

I do know this. The Right uses the term as a pejorative - much like they did with socialism when it came to health care and tax hikes.  They also escalate the intensity of the impact. They do this with a lot of things. e.g., Dr Suess and Mr. Potato head the evil residue of cancel culture while not recognizing things such as banning gays from the military or from getting married was a far more devasting and impactful form of cancel culture.  So.... I've become a bit sensitive to the everything wrong with woke diatribe-filled videos and articles when I know many of them are really intended to be everything wrong with the Left.

SO - we ain't going to agree on what woke means. Yet - I think we probably agree largely on all the specific issues. e.g., neither of us would advocate for race-based selection processes. Neither of us would ignore the impact of racism in the criminal justice system.  So, it seems to me that we agree on most things other than the definition.

So, if we can agree on a term like "extreme wokeisn - or dysfunctional wokeism - we probably would find areas of disagreement.

It would be here - I am not alarmed or all that concerned about extreme wokeism because I think it has a relatively short life cycle and believe it will die a natural death. Capitalism is just too strong a force not to make it so.

So - back to the original video. My view remains the same - I thought it was pretty much overblown hackery.  Yeah - there were some cringe-worthy woke moments in movies - none of which are going to destroy the industry as there are ten-fold more non-woke roles and characters and I thought many of the examples cited by the video author were just flat out wrong.  She sets out this premise - that a female protag/hero must earn her stripes in order to be valid and "non-woke". I say bullshit. That is an absolute standard never applied to male protags/heroes - so why women?  She wouldn't have batted an eye at the Laura Dern character had it been the exact same dialogue uttered by a male.  Basically, I thought it was weak sauce at best.

Quoted from LC This thread should really be called: I'll keep coming back to this...

Fore sure.

Neither side is EVER going to agree so it's really just two sides having their say with no actual chance of swaying the other or convincing them of a point. Sure there may be a little give and take here and there on fringe issues but on core issues there will NEVER be any agreement.

I'd say it's pointless and it probably is but it's good that people can discuss things in a mostly civil way even if there is no chance of any side changing what they think. I also think that a lot of the time it becomes a point scoring exercise so people come back to the thread to get in the final say, but then the other side has to have the final say... but then the other side has to have the final say. Then they kinda agree on something barely relevant to the main issue and then go right back at it. Be lying if I said it wasn't fun to watch, but everyone can see the cycle, right?

I think the fundamental issues are looked at in such different ways that each side almost finds it impossible to grasp that the other can believe what they believe.

I think it's great to debate and for people to have their say, the issue is always censoring of ideas and opinions and that is happening more and more.

Just my thoughts... continue :)

Quoted from Warren Fore sure. Neither side is EVER going to agree so it's really just two sides having their say with no actual chance of swaying the other or convincing them of a point. Sure there may be a little give and take here and there on fringe issues but on core issues there will NEVER be any agreement. I'd say it's pointless and it probably is but it's good that people can discuss things in a mostly civil way even if there is no chance of any side changing what they think. I also think that a lot of the time it becomes a point scoring exercise so people come back to the thread to get in the final say, but then the other side has to have the final say... but then the other side has to have the final say. Then they kinda agree on something barely relevant to the main issue and then go right back at it. Be lying if I said it wasn't fun to watch, but everyone can see the cycle, right? I think the fundamental issues are looked at in such different ways that each side almost finds it impossible to grasp that the other can believe what they believe. I think it's great to debate and for people to have their say, the issue is always censoring of ideas and opinions and that is happening more and more. Just my thoughts... continue :)

Start a thread on whether its acceptable to have images and special fonts on title pages and we'll all go there :)

Quoted from eldave1 Start a thread on whether its acceptable to have images and special fonts on title pages and we'll all go there :)

That's never acceptable!!!!!!!!!!  :P

But I'm coming over to the idea. I very much liked it in Michael's last script. I can't see it being something I'd do in the future as I personally like a standard looking script but if people can do it and pull it off, go for it I say. I used to be a hell of a lot more hard-line on a variety of screenwriting 'issues'. I think now my standard is that if it affects the read then I probably won't like it, if it enhances it whether that be through an orphan, an aside, a fancy title page or super, a VO or a flashback, then go for your life.

Anyway... didn't mean to hijack the woke thread.

Quoted from Warren That's never acceptable!!!!!!!!!!  :P But I'm coming over to the idea. I very much liked it in Michael's last script. I can't see it being something I'd do in the future as I personally like a standard looking script but if people can do it and pull it off, go for it I say. I used to be a hell of a lot more hard-line on a variety of screenwriting 'issues'. I think now my standard is that if it affects the read then I probably won't like it, if it enhances it whether that be through an orphan, an aside, a fancy title page or super, a VO or a flashback, then go for your life. Anyway... didn't mean to hijack the woke thread.

I think 10 years from now the title page will be the movie poster. I also think all scripts will be audio as well as visual. But of course, no orphans:-)

Quoted from eldave1 But of course, no orphans:-)

Of course... everyone knows that  ;D

Quoted from eldave1 This is the thing... those first two things are indeed woke. And therein lies our problem. I do not cede to you the ground to define it nor you to me. We both could post dozens of links supporting our views on the origins and meaning of woke and will never reach consensus.  So, the general debate on woke as a good or bad thing really can go nowhere. I do know this. The Right uses the term as a pejorative - much like they did with socialism when it came to health care and tax hikes.  They also escalate the intensity of the impact. They do this with a lot of things. e.g., Dr Suess and Mr. Potato head the evil residue of cancel culture while not recognizing things such as banning gays from the military or from getting married was a far more devasting and impactful form of cancel culture.  So.... I've become a bit sensitive to the everything wrong with woke diatribe-filled videos and articles when I know many of them are really intended to be everything wrong with the Left. SO - we ain't going to agree on what woke means. Yet - I think we probably agree largely on all the specific issues. e.g., neither of us would advocate for race-based selection processes. Neither of us would ignore the impact of racism in the criminal justice system.  So, it seems to me that we agree on most things other than the definition. So, if we can agree on a term like "extreme wokeisn - or dysfunctional wokeism - we probably would find areas of disagreement. It would be here - I am not alarmed or all that concerned about extreme wokeism because I think it has a relatively short life cycle and believe it will die a natural death. Capitalism is just too strong a force not to make it so. So - back to the original video. My view remains the same - I thought it was pretty much overblown hackery.  Yeah - there were some cringe-worthy woke moments in movies - none of which are going to destroy the industry as there are ten-fold more non-woke roles and characters and I thought many of the examples cited by the video author were just flat out wrong.  She sets out this premise - that a female protag/hero must earn her stripes in order to be valid and "non-woke". I say bullshit. That is an absolute standard never applied to male protags/heroes - so why women?  She wouldn't have batted an eye at the Laura Dern character had it been the exact same dialogue uttered by a male.  Basically, I thought it was weak sauce at best.

Both ideas literally predate woke thinking!

Those ideas (i.e. the two points you mentioned) have been kicking about since the end of slavery. That’s not really contestable.

So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism.

Quoted from Warren Fore sure. Neither side is EVER going to agree so it's really just two sides having their say with no actual chance of swaying the other or convincing them of a point. Sure there may be a little give and take here and there on fringe issues but on core issues there will NEVER be any agreement. I'd say it's pointless and it probably is but it's good that people can discuss things in a mostly civil way even if there is no chance of any side changing what they think. I also think that a lot of the time it becomes a point scoring exercise so people come back to the thread to get in the final say, but then the other side has to have the final say... but then the other side has to have the final say. Then they kinda agree on something barely relevant to the main issue and then go right back at it. Be lying if I said it wasn't fun to watch, but everyone can see the cycle, right? I think the fundamental issues are looked at in such different ways that each side almost finds it impossible to grasp that the other can believe what they believe. I think it's great to debate and for people to have their say, the issue is always censoring of ideas and opinions and that is happening more and more. Just my thoughts... continue :)

Yeah, there’s not much movement, but there are facts not being accepted as facts (i.e. the roots of woke-ism), which means the thread becomes as you described.

I think Dave wouldn’t deny he likes playing Devil’s advocate, which is fine. Just find it odd when he routinely describes not valuing the ideas at all. Yet won’t accept the reality of how they came to pass.

But it is all good natured. And is basically a rehash of conversations happening all over the globe.

And these ideas are designed to divide in perpetuity. Precisely because the calls to change society have no measurable goals. Or stated goals are so obviously divisive and illiberal, there’s no chance of them being implemented.

An example of a solution that is divisive and illiberal being defund the police.

Quoted from Andrew Both ideas literally predate woke thinking! Those ideas (i.e. the two points you mentioned) have been kicking about since the end of slavery. That’s not really contestable. So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism.

Both ideas pre-date extreme wokeism , and I think you know that. I hate to do this because it is boring and tedious - but I see no alternative:

The term wide awake, used in 1854 by New York City's nativist paramilitarists in 1860 became adopted among supporters of Abraham Lincoln.[Lincoln's Republican Party cultivated the Wide Awakes movement primarily to oppose the spread of slavery

Black American folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly, uses the phrase near the end of the recording of his 1938 song "Scottsboro Boys", which tells the story of nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, saying: "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there—best stay woke, keep their eyes open".

J. Saunders Redding recorded a comment from an African American United Mine Workers official in 1940, stating: "Let me tell you buddy. Waking up is a damn sight harder than going to sleep, but we'll stay woke up longer.

By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware', especially in a political or cultural sense. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley.

Woke had gained more political connotations by 1971, when the play Garvey Lives! by Barry Beckham included the line: "I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon' stay woke. And I'm gon help him wake up other black folk

In the 21st-century's first decade, use of woke encompassed the earlier meaning with an added sense of being "alert to social and/or racial discrimination and injustice".

In support of expressions by fellow entertainers in solidarity with members of the Russian feminist rock group Pussy Riot (imprisoned in 2012 for a punk protest staged, according the Washington Post, with intention to wake up the public to women's suppression  Badu tweeted: "Truth requires no belief. Stay woke. Watch closely. #FreePussyRiot"

Following the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, The phrase stay woke was used by activists of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement to urge awareness of police abuses. BET's documentary "Stay Woke," which covered the movement, aired in May 2016.

The term received an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

It was only in 2017 that the word “woke” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was defined as “being ‘aware’ or ‘well-informed’ in a political or cultural sense”.

It eventually evolved into an all-encompassing term to describe leftist political ideology, used as a “shorthand for people on the left” to signal progressiveness, but weaponized by those on the right as a Like phrases before it - such as “politically correct”, “social justice warrior” and “cancel culture” - “woke” has become a toxicised term used by alt-right and politically conservative groups to insult people on the left.

So, it's been around forever through several interactions including the Right's pejorative use of it.

So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism.

This is just silly.  Woke, in its truest sense, was a collection of valid ideas (like the two I mentioned) centered around racial and social justice and encapsulated in the term woke.  It doesn't invalidate the term any more than several of the tenets of Christianity being encapsulated by liberalism.  In fact, it's quite the inverse. Woke had a specific meeting for a century. So it's like you adding characteristics to it that don't apply and thus redefine its true meaning.  

Quoted Text Yeah, there’s not much movement, but there are facts not being accepted as facts (i.e. the roots of woke-ism), which means the thread becomes as you described.

I agree - I think you should finally accept my factually correct definition of woke.

Quoted Text I think Dave wouldn’t deny he likes playing Devil’s advocate, which is fine.

He kind of does. He's retired. Not like he has to work for a living - so why not. You can't play golf and poker 24 hours a day.

Quoted Text Just find it odd when he routinely describes not valuing the ideas at all. Yet won’t accept the reality of how they came to pass.

See above

Quoted Text But it is all good natured. And is basically a rehash of conversations happening all over the globe.

Concur

Quoted from Andrew An example of a solution that is divisive and illiberal being defund the police.

Yeah.... the phrase was really unfortunate as there are some otherwise worthwhile areas of examination under its banner (e.g., should responses to mental health situations be handled by law enforcement or, should we shift that funding to mental health professionals. etc).

It's like having an objective of population control and labeling the mission as "Kill all the babies."

Prominent and reasonable politicians on the Left should have immediately distanced themselves from the phrase (rather than trying to explain it) and re-lableled it with something akin to Reform The Police.

Quoted from eldave1 Yeah.... the phrase was really unfortunate as there are some otherwise worthwhile areas of examination under its banner (e.g., should responses to mental health situations be handled by law enforcement or, should we shift that funding to mental health professionals. etc).

Off topic: The Sheriff or our fine county was quoted a couple of years back: "I currently run the largest mental health facility in the state of Kansas. It's called the Johnson County Jail."

He was serious.

It's a real problem. And, yes, addressing that issue was definitely made harder by the Defund The Police messaging. The right will be hammering the left with that phrase for years to come. But, that's politics, and we brought it on ourselves -- regardless of what 95% of liberals believe (it's not defund the police in the way it's represented by the right). The sad part is: it's a serious problem that should be addressed, but won't be.

Funny thing is... on that issue... there should be broad consensus. Which political side wants law enforcement handling mental health calls? Neither. At least, I don't think.

Now... I return you to your original thread...

Quoted from PKCardinal Off topic: The Sheriff or our fine county was quoted a couple of years back: "I currently run the largest mental health facility in the state of Kansas. It's called the Johnson County Jail." He was serious. It's a real problem. And, yes, addressing that issue was definitely made harder by the Defund The Police messaging. The right will be hammering the left with that phrase for years to come. But, that's politics, and we brought it on ourselves -- regardless of what 95% of liberals believe (it's not defund the police in the way it's represented by the right). The sad part is: it's a serious problem that should be addressed, but won't be. Funny thing is... on that issue... there should be broad consensus. Which political side wants law enforcement handling mental health calls? Neither. At least, I don't think. Now... I return you to your original thread...

Pretty much the same situation here in L.A. - cops/Sheriffs handle the mentally ill. And they are ill-equipped to do so.

Quoted from eldave1 Both ideas pre-date extreme wokeism , and I think you know that. I hate to do this because it is boring and tedious - but I see no alternative: The term wide awake, used in 1854 by New York City's nativist paramilitarists in 1860 became adopted among supporters of Abraham Lincoln.[Lincoln's Republican Party cultivated the Wide Awakes movement primarily to oppose the spread of slavery Black American folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly, uses the phrase near the end of the recording of his 1938 song "Scottsboro Boys", which tells the story of nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, saying: "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there—best stay woke, keep their eyes open". J. Saunders Redding recorded a comment from an African American United Mine Workers official in 1940, stating: "Let me tell you buddy. Waking up is a damn sight harder than going to sleep, but we'll stay woke up longer. By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware', especially in a political or cultural sense. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley. Woke had gained more political connotations by 1971, when the play Garvey Lives! by Barry Beckham included the line: "I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon' stay woke. And I'm gon help him wake up other black folk In the 21st-century's first decade, use of woke encompassed the earlier meaning with an added sense of being "alert to social and/or racial discrimination and injustice". In support of expressions by fellow entertainers in solidarity with members of the Russian feminist rock group Pussy Riot (imprisoned in 2012 for a punk protest staged, according the Washington Post, with intention to wake up the public to women's suppression  Badu tweeted: "Truth requires no belief. Stay woke. Watch closely. #FreePussyRiot" Following the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, The phrase stay woke was used by activists of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement to urge awareness of police abuses. BET's documentary "Stay Woke," which covered the movement, aired in May 2016. The term received an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017. It was only in 2017 that the word “woke” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was defined as “being ‘aware’ or ‘well-informed’ in a political or cultural sense”. It eventually evolved into an all-encompassing term to describe leftist political ideology, used as a “shorthand for people on the left” to signal progressiveness, but weaponized by those on the right as a Like phrases before it - such as “politically correct”, “social justice warrior” and “cancel culture” - “woke” has become a toxicised term used by alt-right and politically conservative groups to insult people on the left. So, it's been around forever through several interactions including the Right's pejorative use of it. So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism. This is just silly.  Woke, in its truest sense, was a collection of valid ideas (like the two I mentioned) centered around racial and social justice and encapsulated in the term woke.  It doesn't invalidate the term any more than several of the tenets of Christianity being encapsulated by liberalism.  In fact, it's quite the inverse. Woke had a specific meeting for a century. So it's like you adding characteristics to it that don't apply and thus redefine its true meaning.

To be fair, I've addressed this previously. This doesn't tell us anything new. It looks like a quick Google!

There was a a mindset that was woke, but it was an empty vacuum, with no real body of ideas applicable to the challenges. This was when woke became woke as we understand it today. Not extreme wokeism, but wokeism. This body of ideas is distinct from a mindset of being alert to injustice as a means of navigating life.

The body of ideas isn't about being alert to injustice; it's about radially reforming society with a fig leaf of being about 'social justice'.

This is just language back and forth. Wokeism, the applied set of ideas, and wokeism the mindset are not the same thing. Yes, they share the label, and yes, you can argue extremism of a hard-to-pin down term, but it's all wasted energy.

What matters of a body of ideas dividing people. Label it what you want, but I'll be calling it wokeism.

Quoted from eldave1 Yeah.... the phrase was really unfortunate as there are some otherwise worthwhile areas of examination under its banner (e.g., should responses to mental health situations be handled by law enforcement or, should we shift that funding to mental health professionals. etc). It's like having an objective of population control and labeling the mission as "Kill all the babies." Prominent and reasonable politicians on the Left should have immediately distanced themselves from the phrase (rather than trying to explain it) and re-lableled it with something akin to Reform The Police.

100%.

This is an example of when the core idea underneath is explicit. Usually it's implicit and hid behind some nice language to dupe people too lazy to explore beyond the surface.

Defund the police isn't a phrase. It's a clear and measured objective that is entirely consistent with ideas that seek to remodel society and take advantage of the current moral panic.

Quoted from Andrew To be fair, I've addressed this previously. This doesn't tell us anything new. It looks like a quick Google! There was a a mindset that was woke, but it was an empty vacuum, with no real body of ideas applicable to the challenges. This was when woke became woke as we understand it today. Not extreme wokeism, but wokeism. This body of ideas is distinct from a mindset of being alert to injustice as a means of navigating life. The body of ideas isn't about being alert to injustice; it's about radially reforming society with a fig leaf of being about 'social justice'. This is just language back and forth. Wokeism, the applied set of ideas, and wokeism the mindset are not the same thing. Yes, they share the label, and yes, you can argue extremism of a hard-to-pin down term, but it's all wasted energy. What matters of a body of ideas dividing people. Label it what you want, but I'll be calling it wokeism.

Nailed it. Well said. :)

To take this really off-topic:

Dave, loving the new profile pic!  Always glad to see what our community looks like in real life!

We return you to our regular programming.

Quoted from Gary in Houston To take this really off-topic: Dave, loving the new profile pic!  Always glad to see what our community looks like in real life! We return you to our regular programming.

Agreed! Dave, you look surprisingly like your old avatar. lol  :)

The greatest threatening face is climate change, y'all. Haha

Quoted from Andrew To be fair, I've addressed this previously. This doesn't tell us anything new. It looks like a quick Google! There was a a mindset that was woke, but it was an empty vacuum, with no real body of ideas applicable to the challenges. This was when woke became woke as we understand it today. Not extreme wokeism, but wokeism. This body of ideas is distinct from a mindset of being alert to injustice as a means of navigating life. The body of ideas isn't about being alert to injustice; it's about radially reforming society with a fig leaf of being about 'social justice'. This is just language back and forth. Wokeism, the applied set of ideas, and wokeism the mindset are not the same thing. Yes, they share the label, and yes, you can argue extremism of a hard-to-pin down term, but it's all wasted energy. What matters of a body of ideas dividing people. Label it what you want, but I'll be calling it wokeism.

Okay - I'll label it extreme wokeism.  

Quoted from Gary in Houston To take this really off-topic: Dave, loving the new profile pic!  Always glad to see what our community looks like in real life! We return you to our regular programming.

Thanks, mate - I just figured the annoying avatar was stale-dated by now.

Quoted from Zack Agreed! Dave, you look surprisingly like your old avatar. lol  :)

Actually - the old avatar was me - in cartoon form

Quoted from eldave1 Actually - the old avatar was me - in cartoon form

I honestly thought your old avatar was just Edgar Allan Poe! Lol

To be fair, you'll be Selleck to me now, Dave, with that beautiful manscaped 'tache!

Where were you? The background looks good.

Quoted from Andrew To be fair, you'll be Selleck to me now, Dave, with that beautiful manscaped 'tache! Where were you? The background looks good.

I was at my favorite place on the planet - Lake Tahoe.  It is the perfect combination of country and city. You can go hiking in pine tree forests overlooking a gorgeous lake during the day and have a five-star dinner and play craps at night.

We go once or twice a year - either early spring or early fall/beginning winter - just before enough snow for skiing - but enough for scenery. There is no one there during the week and you have the town to yourself.

ah, a craps man!  A man after my own heart!  My best night of winnings ever on a craps table came at the Harrah's Lake Tahoe.   And I don't think I've ever been in water as cold as Lake Tahoe. Love skiing there in winter and hanging out there in the summer.  beautiful place.

Quoted from Gary in Houston ah, a craps man!  A man after my own heart!  My best night of winnings ever on a craps table came at the Harrah's Lake Tahoe.   And I don't think I've ever been in water as cold as Lake Tahoe. Love skiing there in winter and hanging out there in the summer.  beautiful place.

Yeah - one of the best casino games - there is normally a real team spirit. AND- that water is cold!

Not sure if I should bring this up as this stuff is like kerosene, but have scriptwriting comps gone super woke?

Seems the more I look through the lists of recent winners the more I find it hard to believe that is was just down to their scripts and not their gender/ethnicity.

First place I noticed it was on the BBC’s Writer’s Room where they list (and picture) their previous winners, and tbh it wasn’t that surprising as the BBC does seem preoccupied with pushing certain narratives over the last few years or so but I was a bit surprised to see what looks like the same thing going on with random screenwriting comps.

Please tell me I’m just being a conspiracy nut!

Quoted from Pleb Not sure if I should bring this up as this stuff is like kerosene, but have scriptwriting comps gone super woke? Seems the more I look through the lists of recent winners the more I find it hard to believe that is was just down to their scripts and not their gender/ethnicity. First place I noticed it was on the BBC’s Writer’s Room where they list (and picture) their previous winners, and tbh it wasn’t that surprising as the BBC does seem preoccupied with pushing certain narratives over the last few years or so but I was a bit surprised to see what looks like the same thing going on with random screenwriting comps. Please tell me I’m just being a conspiracy nut!

I think the answer is - it depends.

In the case of the BBC Writer's Room - yeah, no doubt. But it's in their mission statement:

BBC Writersroom is a cross-platform department which seeks out and develops new writing talent, with a strong emphasis on diversity and regionality, while also championing more experienced writers

And in their results. For example, they just announced those who were awarded slots in their writers development program - LONDON VOICES.. Here's the breakdown of the 16 winners.

Black  = 7
Asian = 4
White = 3
Arab =  1
Latino = 1

9 were females. 7 were males.

That is certainly not representative of the demographics.  So, yeah - I think they had a targeted group. I don't know if that means they are woke or are just trying to do outreach - but certainly, they were not looking for white males.

Nicholls certainly seems to favor stories about oppression - but they did way before the term woke was ever in vogue.

I don't think most the contests give a shit one way or another. That being said, I am sure that readers have their own individual filters.

Black =

I'm not against pretending to be trans or female if that's what it takes